New fed program for elderly wolves, "Meals on Hoof's."

Your excellent bit of satire points up the issue that has bothered me ever since first hearing, decades ago, about ranchers sending their herds and flocks out, largely unattended, onto the "open range" of Nevada, where I lived at the time -- and then some of them bemoaning the mountain lions or coyotes or other predators (wild dogs, anyone?) that might take down a hooved meal now and then.

Damnit, these lands are OURS, ALL of ours, and not just for grazing. You want to graze there? Fine. But tend to your herds. Don't go killing OUR wildlife (by legalizing the immoral "hunting" of wolves, mountain lions, bears and other non-game wildlife) -- to compensate for your shameful, lazy inattentiveness . . .

Very funny, George.

Less funny is the fact that we're now paying for these meals directly:
http://www.lcsun-news.com/new_mexico-news/ci_13505116
As if the ridiculously low grazing fee, drought payments, EQIP fund, endless other subsidies and undue political clout aren't enough, ranchers need compensation for the advantageously-looted "picnic baskets" too. It's the cowboy way!

I love it!

I live in Cody WY which tries to sell itself to the outside world as a "Real Western Tourist Destination ". Folks come from all over the world wanting to see "real" cowboys. We have to break the news t them gently...there are very few cowboys left to be seen , only the cows.

Great article George!
I for one certainly enjoy great Montana beef, but there has to be some sense of responsibility by ranchers for the risks of grazing on PUBLIC lands where most of the public like to allow their wildlife have first priority. This goes for competetion with bison too. From what I can tell...and I do not profess to be a biologist...conflicts with wolves and bison are over competetion for land access, not really the natural process of having wolves or bison on the land.

Ok, one of the reasons rent on public lands is low is because there are additional risks and expenses a rancher incurs because they have to make improvemets to land they don't own, the number of predators in the area and the general productivity of the range. What this article fails to acknowledge is the damage wolves are causing cattle and sheep on private property, often within sight of towns. 1 cow was killed outright and 2 had to be put down because of the extent of their injuries within less than one mile of downtown Cascade, Idaho on private land. Do we put up electronic fences and collar all the wolves so they don't pass off public land? This will cause some problems for connectivity of the wolf packs, but fair is fair. If we can't graze cattle on public lands why not ban all wolves from private property unless they have permission from the landowner to enter. I care about the cost and quality of the meat I eat but I care more about the immediate physical threat of wolves on my property. We end up with meat either raised outside this country with fewer regulations and safeguards or meat raised in feedlots. Yum! I prefer my beef raised locally and on grass, but if I have to make this trade off so that we can keep wolves off private property that would be a tradeoff I could consider. I hope you realize that the last comments were made facetiously.

Becky,

And who, pray tell, is responsible for the (presumably lower) "productivity of the range" on public lands? Public lands ranchers! Who pays for many of the "improvements" that ranchers "have" to make? Taxpayers. We're so sick of hearing about how hard it is to ranch public lands and that's why the grazing fee is so dreadfully low. Hey, if it's that hard, STOP DOING IT. No, seriously. Ranchers should ask their congressperson for a one time payment to get the hell out of their unsustainable hobby and they won't have to worry about the wolves anymore. The wolves will resume feasting on all the deer and elk that finally have enough to eat.

As for your comments about getting feedlot or foreign beef, only 2 percent of all the beef in the U.S. market is raised on public lands in the eleven western states. Many of those cows get shipped to a feedlot to fatten up anyway, after coming off the "range" too skinny to be worth much. Now, maybe you've got a local producer, a local slaughterhouse, and a local grocery store, but chances are, there's some big corporation making money on your food preferences.

P.S.: You could just stop eating beef. Plenty of people have, and lived!

Let's just go to productivity- an irrigated pasture is able to produce more grass per acre and more pounds of beef per acre. An steep pasture is less productive because of the energy needed to tavel across it. Shallower soils hold less water and produce less grass to be harvested. Planting improved forage mixes increases yield per acre. The list goes on. These things are not under the ranchers control. These things are recognized in the established rents.

Why should I stop eating beef? I really enjoy it. Fabulous taste and aromas. It allows grass, which I don't eat to be converted into something I enjoy. It helps keep ranch land in production so that I can gaze across someone else's property to the mountains without seeing so many houses. Do you think that there won't be more beef imported into the US if prices go up beacuse our production goes down? Do you think that if we all become vegans that there will be a need for fewer acres in food production? Do thing some of the ranches will become housing developements or Tamarack Resorts or Yellowstone Clubs?

Physical threat by wolves on private property Becky?

sounds like shameless fearmongering

Cattle aint got no place in the arid west.

One cow per acre in Minnesota

One cow per hundreds or thousands of acres in arid western pulbic lands....

hmmmmm should we irigate pasture and befowl our precious western riparian areas to raise an animal that is more easily raised in wetter climes?

It sounds like George is a vegetarian and believes everyone slse should have to be so he can have his way. Does he mean the enviros will make up all of the money that ranchers have been paying for grazing rights weile the hikers get a free pass? Oh yes, George are you going to pay for pasture for what ungulates the wolves have left so they can make it thru the winter, you know the pasture that ranchers provide for winter wildlife graze?

tracker, you may think they are only coming for us to take our property rights away, better worry about what you have that enviros might want.

George, your article was excellent. I just returned from Glacier National Park, where cattle had slipped in on the east side of the park because the lake is extremely low near the cattle guard. Seeing cattle inside of Glacier is disturbing and I saw them there last year also.

One powerful way to help wolves is to completely stop eating beef.

You obviously don't live where I do. How many wolves have you seen on your property? Perhaps you should have a dozen or more on your property before you make your comment about fear mongering. These aren't friendly wolves and they aren't afraid of people. At least now we have a hunting season and can perhaps put a little fear of man into the most troublesome ones. I don't dispute that they have a place in the woods, but they have had very little to fear from man so far and are very bold. You have to see an animal they have torn up and left to die to really fully appreciate the wolf.

Forever, the cattle you saw on the east side were probably from the Blackfeet Nation. If you think you were disturbed at the sight of a cow, think how the Blackfeet feel seeing a white man on what was once their land.

Hmmmm - I understand what you're saying and completely agree with you.

I hope to goodness this article is 'tongue-in-cheek!' I am interested to know what the author does for a living that provides a product for our society. The ranchers and farmers of today, one of the few sectors producing goods necessary for human life, are under attack from special interest groups that produce nothing but words and inflammatory rhetoric, such as this article.

To the issue at hand - do you, George, expect to see a cowboy watching each and every cow? There are folks watching and herding the livestock and following the guidelines set forth by the public lands agencies. I urge you to contact any rancher that has cattle on public lands impacted by wolves and get a first-hand account of the true story.

Reading your biography, I understand that you were a range technician. As such, you understand that grasses evolved with grazing. Will you move the elk through these same areas to ensure the regrowth and non-wolfiness of the rangelands? FWP and multiple professional papers prove that elk follow cattle. Left to their own, the elk overuse the forage, as in the Lamar Valley.

Please do not publish such inflammatory mis-information.

IF every cow that set foot on public lands in Wyoming Montana and Idaho at some point during the year were to suddenly vanish without a trace, the beef market would register a brief seismic shock ---a Beefquake--- but 45 days from now there would be little evidence of the loss and life as we know it would go on . In the case of Wyoming, 1.4 million distinct cattle are present at some part of the year, but only about 400,000 are shipped to market. The nation consumes something like 40 million cattle annually . I do know that Wyoming is below the median of states that produce beef cows...it is outproduced by such rugged individualist cowboy states as Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Hawaii, Georgia and about 30 other states. It would've been much wiser for Wyoming to retain the Bison as its red meat crop , or perhaps import the the Himalayan Yak instead of some Scottish bovine. Cattle are not native to Wyoming; are in fact alien exotic species not suited to the environment here. Questioning the economic business model of the public land portion of the existent cattle industry in Wyoming is fair game. I suspect the conclusion would be it is nowhere near being justifiable when set against the feedlot and closed pasture methods of the nearby Midwest and those 30+ states that outproduce Wyoming. Especially when Wyoming's entire agriculture bottom line produces a measly 2 percent of its gross wages but takes six percent of its population to do it.

I do not know what number of cattle are grazed on public land and how many animal-days or total AUM's are alloted for public graze. I do know every cow on a public tract is eating grass that could just as well go to wildlife, and in fact competes with wildlife in intensive areas. I also know that New York and Ohio no longer have elk herds , but Wyoming does. Elk used to live everywhere in the continental US except the Gulf Coast and the hot deserts , but have been pushed back to mainly the Rocky Mountains and some one-off game farms " ranches". Pushed as much as anything by cattle barons , of that is not too inflammatory.

Oh hell...let's inflame a little. When Mr. Hmmmm above tries to defend ranchers and all the money they pay for grazing right and to provide winter habitat for wildlife, he's pretty much blowing smoke into his Stetson. The federal grazing fee is presently the same today as it was when the Taylor Grazing Act was passed in 1934.... $ 1.35 per AUM if I recall , and that was lowered from an exorbitant high of $ 1.75 or so a decade back , when ranchers claimed those high grazing fees were breaking them at the bank. Yeah right, an adult cow and her calf getting public grass for four cents a day in real dollars...same dollars as The Great Depression, and 170 million acres of public land to graze on and they still can't make a decent living without a gamut of supplemental subsidies , giveaway ag loans , and some extraordinary tax breaks at least in Wyoming) ? Don't get me wrong. I eat local Black Angus beef. But I could survive on Argentine imported beef in order to provide more Elk habitat and convert wolves to it. I'll compromise and just buy Colorado beef instead, because Wyoming ranchers hate wolves so much I feel no obligation to further subsidize their zealot ilk with my Elk..

Wyoming carries around 105,000 Elk , almost all of them on public land for most of the year. They are obviously outnumbered by cattle, almost 15-to-1. But guess what , Mr. Hmmmm..... the Elk population in Wyoming is still increasing right alongside those pesky wolves and in spite of competing for grass with farmed cattle. Up over ten percent since last year's elk census. Wyoming gross cattle numbers are down from 1.75 million to 1.35 million in the last few years, but wolves only killed about 0.0002 percent of them. Wolves are hardly devastating the Wyoming beef cow industry- they would hardly have any measureable impact on it at all if as George rightly points out cattle were not sacrificially gifted to wolves by lazy ranchers and nonexistent cowboys in the first place.

So it appears to me that the more cattle we remove from Wyoming's public land, the better it is all the way around.

Dewey, you are wrong about elk increasing with the wolves, take a look at teh numbers, the real ones, not what Smith says.
Enviros put out the info that timbering was not paying it's way, and they got rid of timber companies, now guess what, the forests are burning, and the NFS badly needs that money now. Instead teh taxpayers have t dig it up. Meanwhile the enviros who are so afraid someone else will not pay enough when they use the land, are themselves getting a free ride, they are too lazy to even build their own trails, the rest of us pay for their trails to be built and the trailheads too.
Now they want to get rid of the food producers too.

Hmmmmm.... my Wyoming Elk population numbers aren't derived from whomever " Smith" is. ( Doug Smith ?) They are the Wyoming Game and Fish's own annual statewide aerial census numbers of Elk present outside of Yellowstone in midwinter . These same numbers are used to set hunting seasons and range con forage, etc. by the various agencies I requested and got that data from a wildlife biologist at the Cody regional office. The guy heading the Absaroka Elk Ecology Study , actually.

The rest of your comment, however, isn't worth the space or time of a rebuttal.

Dewey,

Feel free to eat the imported beef. Please do not burden your local health care providers when you fall ill, as other countries do not have the regulations that American beef producers follow to ensure the safety of their product.

You also write that Ohio and other states no longer have elk. Why don't you support returning elk to these states and leave the wide open spaces of the great plains states alone.

http://gf.state.wy.us/services/news/pressreleases/07/03/23/070323_2.asp Dewey, you might want to check this press release out. It's on the Wyoming Game and Fish website and seems to indicate that elk counts are down and down more in areas currently occupied by wolves. I also read on that site that elk counts were up in feeding areas. Also on their site, elk numbers peaked in 1996 in Wyoming.

Dewey, you are so right, there are still plenty of elk in the wolfless areas. It is only where the heavy infestations of wolves exist that the elk are being destroyed. Part of the Sunlight Basin falls into this situation. what they can't kill they are running until they starve. There are 6000 of the 19,000 Northern elk herd left, and most of those are in Montana, not Yellowstone. There is no plan or way to stop the slide either.
hy don't you who are so concerned about what rancher pay grazing fees, tell us how much you pay to use a parking area at a trail head.How much you pay to use the trails, hw much to use the camp areas. Feel free to chime in George, about how much you pay to sue our lands out here for hikeing.

I love Goerge! He exemplifies classic eastern thought. The colony of Montana is to be the playground of the beautifull people. I hear Goerge is sprearheading the reintroduction of the wolf to the dense forests of his home state of Vermont. Bravo! After all, wolves thrive in the dense forests of Northern Minnesota-why not Vermont? Why not Goerge?
Ya know, I can't think of one endangered species east of the Mississippi (well. there are a few). How come 98% of endangered species are west of the Missisipi? Surely some must be reintroduced to achieve balance and harmony. Vermonts ecosystem must be collapsing!
I need to get real! Why should any good Vermonter sacrifice "rover" and suffer inconvinience when we have Montana to sacrifice for us. Just knowing there are free wolves in Montana makes me feel so much better about myself when I'm stuck in this traffic jam. Peace and love dude.

Great job George. Finally, after all these years of cows destroying our streams, riparian areas and native grasses, people are writing about this socialized business, otherwise known as welfare ranching. I'm sick of seeing friends and businesses going under and the cow people getting benefits and subsidies. If they can't make it ....tough.
Time to rid all public lands of their crap machines and let the fish and wildlife prosper.

Tell us how you really feel, George. Or did Jon Marvel put you up for this one?

Hmmmm-----the figures on local Elk populations and desired numbers in the Cody region , that I recieved last month from Wyo G & F personnel :

2008 Post-Season Population Estimates ( Winter 2009 aerial census) by herd unit:

Cody - 6,700 (objective 5,600)---> over objective by 1100
Clarks Fork - 5,400 (objective 3,000)---> over objective by 2400
Gooseberry - 4,100 (objective 2,700)---> over obective by 1400

In other words, in the areas west of Cody , the G & F desires to has 16, 200 Elk but only wants 11,300. There are about 5000 too many Elk in those herds.

More importantly , each of those herd units has one or more wolf packs associated with it , although the Gooseberry unit had some or all of its wolves taken out this last summer, If I recall. About three weeks ago Wildlife Services removed three wolves from a pack that had killed one calf and another cow who was put down.

But it's obvious that Elk numbers are increasing on top of their associated wolf packs. and yes, the actual Wyoming statewide Elk count did in fact increase from 95,000 to 105,000 in the past year, and those increases occurred in both Wolfy and Non-Wolfy areas. It would appear that milder winters and wetter springs and habitat/forage improvement are the prime factor. Any real ecologist will tell you that wild ungulate herds should never be allowed to steadily increase and plateau for long periods of time, The populations need to "crash" back to a low level every few decades, then rebuild usig the stronger surviving animals while the habitat itself rebuilds When Wyoming Game Fish or any other agency manages to keep game herds for consistently high in population , steadily so, they are making a big ecological mistake, It's simply wrong to manage Elk herds, for instance, to yield a big harvest of huntable animals by keeping the herd counts way high . By doing so, game agencies are " farming" Elk instead of letting natural cycles rule. The do this to maintain license revenues, duh! But it's not good management over the long haul. Elk are wildlife, not crops.

By the way , Becky---that Wyo G & F report you linked to is three years old info . It is seriously questioned by non-Game and Fish analysts. You'd have to send some time with Bill Rudd of WY G & F to realize how much he hates wolves. Wyo G&F;is attempting to foist all Elk herd problems onto the backs of wolves wherever possible. Rudd is the leading antagonist, and he's out of control. The Wyo G & F talks out of both sides of their mouths too much.

What do you know about the big Absaroka Elk Ecology Study that began two years ago north and west of Cody , and will continue its field work for another season till next Spring when the tagged Elk collars fall off and the data is assimilated for crunching ? Do you now anything at all about the AEES and who's behind it and the premise for it ? Be careful, it's a loaded question....

All bantering aside, the cattle ranch industry is only hanging on by the goodness of the congressional teat. The real beef industry in the west is mostly further east as Dewey has pointed out.
Grassland beef may actually taste better; but I doubt it.
If ranchers enjoy their hobby so much, they should be willing to pay to fence their pets and provide them with protection from our wildlife.
I want wild wolves.
I can be quite happy enough with feedlot beef.

Too funny, George.

Most cattle outfits in the West are "cow calf" operations. They grow the calves and ship em to the corn country to fatten up. I'd like to know the percentage on how many yearling feeders are shipped to the wet country from the arid west. Theres no "free ranging" herds of cattle in Illinois. They're not gonna waste high value corn land on growing calves.

Dewey, share with us your utopian "alternative" to the last 100 years in the West. If you were king for life and could turn back the clock to 1850, how would you rewrite history to come up with your desired outcome for today. How would you like to see the West today? Anyone can throw stones at glass houses, but let us look inside your glass house. Don't just dip your toes into the water of critizing todays establishment, dive in and immerse all of us in "your" establishment. Defend your Nirvana agianst all comers. I'm sure you've thought that far ahead, but have you thought of the ramifications? Now it gets sticky.

Where will you draw the borders? Is Texas, Kansas, California apart of the utopia where hate was just a legend and war was never known? Are you to be a refugee too, or will you be exempt to live here? Will the Native Americans be the "oil sheiks" of the west. The Flathead Res cuts a lot of timber ya know. Certainly they won't be hunting Buffalo on horseback. Civilization is relentless as it is attractive.

Where would the copper in your cell phone come from? Not from Butte. You do realize thats it's very possible the copper in your I pod came from the toxic acid hole of the Berkely pit(recycled of course). I'm not aware of any copper mines east of the Missouri. In fact, I'm not aware of any mines east of the Missouri that produce the heavy metals that go into your computer.Tell us all the correct way to live without. Of course, why should you live without when everyone else lives with plenty.

Logger--- you asked about my "Utopian" alternative to the West . I don't have one. You plucked that out of your...uh, hat...and presumed it upon me.

I will contribute one ' alternative' for my home state of Wyoming that wold solve a great deal of livestock-wildlife issues , by merely changing one small word in the Code of the West and Wyoming constitutional bedrock. Change "Out" to "In" ...as in Fence Out to Fence In. Wyoming is b law a Fence Out state. If you do nt want stray cattle coming on your place, its not the cattle owner's fault or even his responsibility...it's YOUR responsibility to fence them out ! The cattle have more rights and the ability to trespass than any human. They get a free pass. But it goes a lot further than that .

Basically , Fence Out is what allows ranchers to throw cows on the mountain and leave them untended, or graze them hither and yon without fulltime tending or even 24/7 responsibility. It's a very clear legal doctrine that says livestock have preemptive rights that supersede other legal bindings , such as possession and property. It is PRECISELY the Fence Out exclusion that allows ranchers to claim damages and compensation for cattle killed by bears and wolves on public land. They have that manifest working for them to add to claiming damages on their private land as well. They have their beefCake and get to eat it , keep it, and get paid for it , always. It is s-o-o-o-o countermanding to law about ordinary property and possessions

If, however , we went to a universal Fence IN legal framework, then the livestock owner is fully responsible for his stock at all times , and if they trespass or transgress it is his responsibility to make good and deal with it. With Fence In , if a stockman doesn't want wolves or bears attacking his cattle on public land, it's up to that rancher to keep his livestock " In" , which is a euphemism for under his control and keep at all times. If those cattle are loose or they are untended and get attacked by wolves, it isn't the wolves fault under Fence In.

But under Fence Out, it might be, and by defacto policy usually is worked as such.

What I'm saying here is ranchers need to take better care of their allegedly valuable livestock ---be responsible for them 24/7---when they place them off their private property onto public land. And further, that rancher cannot nor should not be allowed to claim damages and compensation for cattle lost to wolves if they were in fact untended on public land or otherwise neglected or not under his management control at the time. That's one reason , I presume, that Grazing Fees are so low. It presumes the rancher will incur additional time and expense in protecting his four legged property, and is therefore incumbent on the rancher to do just that if he expects to see that cow come October. And why wouldn't he ?

It could not be simpler: your cows are your cows. The wolves are the public's wolves, as are all wildlife. If the " public" wolf comes on private property and kills a "private" Fenced In cow, then by all means you have the right to take away the wolf and be paid for the cow , more or less. But ---that right should not extend out to the public side of the equation. If the private cow is put on the public's land, the protections and legal remedies of Fenced In not conveyed unless that cow is being cowboyed.

The rancher cannot expect to have the best of both worlds, and the wolf none.

I wouldn't want to live in Utopia. I was born in and choose to stay in Cody , Wyoming. What I do want is a level regulatory playing field for domestic stock and wild animals. And I want the wildlife of my state to enjoy the benefits accorded to livestock, not be penalized by them.

( I'm also ignoring the last two paragraphs of your comment above , which are just more yukked up rhetorical redneck hairballs.)

What an excellent story and wonderful idea! But it is quite clear that the ranchers may be just as lazy as those on welfare when they do not watch their stock. A person made a wonderful point in a comment on a similar topic. That point was that shepherds had watched their flocks for over 1,000 years without the need of fences or firearms. The only difference today is the laziness and silly expectations. Farmers want to complain and say it is on private land that they are openly wandering, but how the heck is the wolf to know that. I think if I saw a nice clean refrigerator in the middle of a pasture, private land or not, I'd have to take a peak to see what's inside especially if I'm hungry.
Wonderful article. Thanks.

In response to Becky.
You know I've worked hands on with wolves for over three years. Even with constant human interaction most of the wolves are very skittish of humans. For a wild one not to be a bit afraid of humans is totally ridiculous and I'd have to be a fool to doubt my own experiences over another person's foolish perceptions. As the article implies, these people need to be more attentive to their animals and stop expecting all wildlife to understand your selfish desires so ranchers can sit on their rumps and point their fingers.

Demarcated Landscapes

Oh my gosh! I love your reply to Becky! But you must realize these people, "the salt of the land" *cough*, are stubborn, ignorant, and selfish. It'd quite difficult to get a point across to someone who embodies those attributes.

And Becky,
Don't allow wolves on "private lands"? Jeez, you are so very narrow-minded if you really believe that the only watching you should do over animals is for the wolves and other predators. No-no-no. You need to be watching YOUR animals. And how much beef is generated from open range cattle compared to the regular Walmart beef anyway? A small percentage. Get real. For people to support such a thing and place so much reverence to the importance of free-ranged cattle is a very flawed ad skewed debate. There are many things wrong with our foods. Why don't you start attacking processed foods instead rather than wolves? As the point described in this article demonstrates, it would be just as foolish to leave a duffle-bag full of money in a front lawn of a run-down neighborhood. But that's private property too, right?

So wolf, are you saying if we come on your campsite on public land, it is a free for all for anything we want, if you are not watching it?

Todd:
You are a member of the human species and involved with human interactions unlike wildlife. To expect wildlife to understand what a human calls his and hers is silly. I expect any human to know better should they have IQ over 1. If I am camping on public lands and my stuff is left unattended, that would be my own problem for not watching it but that does not make it legal for a person to steal it. They would, however, get away with it though because there was, according to your analogy, no witnesses.
Would it be a free-for-all? Well, that depends on the asshat.

Uhhh, you said you would invade an untended refrigerator. Or are you saying you are not a human? Besides you are using the public lands for free, isn't your criteria, "not paying enough"? And nothing hardly qulaifies as "enough".

Wolves - we love to hate them, fear them, demonize them, and love them. How many of the above writers have studied all the available material on wolves - everything they need, all their pack/family interactions. How many have studied the history of man and why men kill animals? How many have looked at the numbers of wild animals killed for something other than food and studied the anthropology of the killing of what we call predators. How many hate a wolf because it killed an animal we want to kill. How many have studied what is in a man that he is afraid of that he cannot face so he kills a wolf and teaches the killing of a wolf.
Why does anyone put cattle out and then hope a wolf will not consider them for food.
Food fact: for survival we do not need to eat meat. and while it is a way of life in the west, land in the east supports more food which supports more cattle than our arid land.
one last question: How do cattle benefit land?

Todd:
You hold a very...how should I say - distant debate. I said this: "I think if I saw a nice clean refrigerator in the middle of a pasture, private land or not, I'd have to take a peak to see what's inside especially if I'm hungry." Don't take me out of context. But if you want to debate such a silly thing, lets demonstrate your arrogance. If that fridge was behind a fence, no I would not peak in to see what's inside. If I was starving, being a human, I'd go and knock on there door to see if I may have some of their food. If the fridge was not behind a fence and there were no signs to address that land as private, I'd take a peak. If I was starving and there was actually food inside, I'd eat a bit. Humans will associate refrigerators with food and wolves will any prey animal the same. A prey animal that is not very bright (like a cow) might as well be as threatening as a fridge is to a human.
Now - the key topic here is fenced in or not. The fridge in this analogy is not fenced in and should there be no signs (signs that a human can read) that states "private property", curiosity alone will guide most to check that fridge.
You want to take me literal in such a analogy rather than see the point behind it. Tell me, do you do this out of spite, like the spite you use to kill things you dislike, or out of sheer ignorance and/or stupidity, like how you take care of your livestock? I'm not a city boy nor am I a country boy either. I have an education in both fields from living self-sustainably in the wild to legally and morally generating money in the city. You sir, sound like a mooch and an uneducated, ill-informed, disgruntled jerk-off with no more value than toenail clippings. Sure, the clippings will biodegrade and contribute back to the nitrogen system and so will you when your under the ground. That is your value to me. How old are you anyway? 30's or 40's and still acting like a child? Surely an educated man could come up with a stronger debate than that petty garbage. I'm sick of you people, to be frank. You call yourself the salt of the land, I call you the salt on an open wound. How are you going to help our environment or do you even care outside of your own self and family? Forgive the rudeness or not, I care not. I care as much about you as you do about wolves and other things you don't understand yet label as "pest". The average method for uneducated ranchers for what they call pest or vermin (which is bullets and gun powder) under many tests have proven to be backasswards from something that actually works and is permanent. Studies have shown that the problems get worst. You don't have a clue how to "manage" nature and the human species is still learning how to do their best in management but the truth is that humans have only been here for 2M+ years which is shit compared to the 30M+ many of our mammals have been here for. And you, a dead-beat raised and educated with in the confines of your po-dunk town understand proper wildlife management? These senators and politicians that profit off of you guys love ignorant/stupid people because of the revenue you all generate - for them. Way to contribute. Too bad the only good contribution you could make is to the nitrogen cycle. I am political and I am well informed and you can bet your ass I'll be addressing my state senators to press against this delisting and get you people back on a leash since you don't know how to control yourself. As James Madison pressed to decrease the voting value of uneducated people and place more value into those that were (which was the first step to our electoral college), the same applies here. Uninformed/uneducated people do not need to be "managing" the land via violence which seems to be the only thing they know. Peace.

You get those rednecks, Dewey!

20 points for you Wolf!

I have nothing else to say (for the moment) seeing as Wolf already did so.

I'll take two points and donate the rest to wolf conservation, thanks.

I have no problem protecting my stock. It is called a 7.62 x 51mm @ 2610 ft per second. In the hands of a skilled marksman it is quite devastating to any varmint and I have plenty of patience to sit, wait and watch, a skill I learned in another life. In my semi-retired state I get a great deal of enjoyment just sitting and watching, that which is mine. As a utilitarian I find the wolf to be of little value except in the most remote areas. When he crosses into mine he has no value at all.

Bugs/virsuses/bacteria etc come from FILTH. Just look how the FDA approved meats industry dunk these Beef/Pork/chicken carcasses into vats of water and feces. Their loaded with growth hormones, bugs you name it. This is why meats kill people more now than ever. This is why I hunt elk and deer. Go enjoy your lazy city white neck people packaged meats at your grocery, at your cafe, all you want.. Go ahead and finally destroy the right to free range cattle, yes I agree get the cattle and sheep off public lands, get those animals into the pens where the filth is, they can be raised in it, and killed in it, and you white necks can eat it all up..The sooner the better.. Get those filthy toxins in your blood streams and then I can live in peace again.. Just that campylobacter connected to chickens can trigger a life-threatening bloodstream infection in people with a weakened immune system. That's why I don't eat filthy chicken meats or pork's. Industrialize all foods, bring in foreign foods, dependence on delivery from our foes is a wonderful idea. Less people, less houses, less wanna be lands managers..

London:
That looks like a familiar post. Too bad you keep posting inaccurate information. Like yogurt, its loaded with bacteria. They call it pro-bacteria. but then again, you don't have to eat yogurt to get the bacterias that our bodies need to survive, after all we did evolve from such. Or are you one of those crazy Christians that believe the Earth is only a little over 3,000 years old? On that note, if bacteria did come from filth and we are as humans are a product of bacteria, I could see the relationship. Such a silly American with a foreign screen name.
I see nothing wrong with hunting deer, elk, and other ungulates so long as you do so out of necessity to survive or live within reasonable comfort (ie: don't make enough money to feed yourself and you family). But, you out way too much value into free ranged stock when only a small fraction of that meat goes to market (>2%). Wake up.

Former Spud:
Semi-retired huh? Well that makes sense considering the further back in generations, the more mistakes we've made. Stagnate thought patterns and traditions that no longer apply will die with these older generations. Enjoy believing you truly "own" something rather than just be responsible for it. Of course you don't see the value of the wolf and other predators when you come from such a misguided line. So, did your family have slaves when that was legal? Did you "own" them too?

Sorry to disappoint you wolf, but as the father of ten I have more than guaranteed my gene pool will be here long after I am gone.

Several of them have followed in my foot steps and are crack shots also. Makes a Daddy proud.

Now, that is disappointing. Still popping out kids like the good old days huh?

I've been threatened more often (by a factor of 100) and worse (by a factor of 1,000,000) by free-ranging yuppie hounds than ever by any wolf, cougar, feral lupine, or whatever the hell terror USDA's fence-stringing minions are whipping up this week.

Oh to live long enough to see the entire human drama gone and forgotten.

The article ignores one of the biggest concerns with the increase in wolves--that's right, wolf flu. "What is Wolf Flu?" you ask. All I can tell you is that if you thought Swine Flu was bad, just wait until you get a dose of Wolf Flu!

And who is behind wolf flu? Well, do you is that it's just a coincidence that the word "Influenza" spelled backwards is "A New Liberal." Connect the dots, people!

-Jon Cheever.

To Cheever,
Just out of curiosity, did you ever go to grammar school? I've got some bad news for you. "Influenza" spelled backwards is "A Zne Ulfnl". But that was probably one of your good-ol-boy jokes. I'm laughing on the inside. You cemented your ignorance with your Swine Flu/Wolf Flu comment. First of all, if you've done any research you'll find Swine Flu is just as bad as the common cold. Trust me I got Swine Flu earlier this year and I recovered in a day or two. Swine Flu is only dangerous for toddlers and retards; so you better be careful. Second; Wolf Flu? WTF! Was that seriously your lead up to your good-ol-boy joke?

LMAO Canis Lupus! Love it *wink*

George is right. We should stop subsidizing ranchers and let the market decide these issues. We'd be doing them a favor, actually. They work hard trying to make a living by ranching.

If they weren't subsidized, they'd realize that they could make a lot more money by subdividing their ranches. A lot of Californians are eager to leave their state, and they have big money to spend on new Montana spreads. If Montana ranchers were splitting their land into ranchettes instead of actually ranching, they'd be bringing lots of new money into the state--and they wouldn't have the headaches of dealing with wolves, etc.

Montana is such a vast place, that we can handle a lot of newcomers in a lot of subdivisions. It is a future that makes a lot of sense, a future that we can thank George for doing his best to hasten along.

Good points Frank. The ranches in mountain areas could be sold for trophy ranches. They would shut off access to the "public land in the mountains in many cases, but then the hikers wouldn't need to take so much time off from work and they could earn more money instead of playing on land they could no longer get to.

I'll say.
But with our luck those rightwingranchers would all sell to ex-cops from Orange County...