ok, let's have more of these disasters across the country. introduce wolves in all our urban areas. central park, nyc could use a few packs. chicago could have a couple. LA could use several packs to help control gangs. disney could take quite a few especially in animal kingdom. air dropping several rogue wolves into selected sporting events would be enetertaining. the masters, super bowl, nba finals, maybe even selected baseball venues.

Dave:

I know you're using some exaggeration here, but I would agree that we need to reintroduce wolves in a lot more of the country where wolves have sufficient prey. A lot of the Eastern US fits this requirement. I actually think that wolves would do better in states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee than much of the West. There are huge deer herds there.

Good to read an articulate article by Wuerthner, an ecologist and scientist who understands wolves, and their role in the natural world. Disappointing to see RMEF's Dave Allen, using the same anti-wolf rhetoric spouted by anti-wolf crusaders like Ron Gillett.

George....thanks for emphasizing the ecological benefits involved in the presence of wolves . Unfortunately, Montana FWP doesn't acknowledge the connection between top carnivores and the health of naturally functioning ecosystems. They conduct no studies on what the affect of removing top predators will have on the bio-diversity of an area.
But as long as the livestock industry controls wildlife management in this state,it's doubtful that ecosystem management will be given any consideration.

Mr.Wuerthner has opened my eyes to thoughts and actions that I would have otherwise missed. It seems that he has a unique ability and grasp of the over all situation and can put it into a understandable form that we all need to see.

George

More than a year ago, David Allen and the RMEF were prepared to sell elk down the river to the livestock industry in a little publicized and less known conference in Billings to find a solution to the so-called "brucellosis problem."

The conference was cooked up between the RMEF and the Montana Stockgrowers. At the beginning only agency people and various ranchers and some hunters were invited. No conservationists--not even the Montana Wildlife Federation. (Some folks from the Greater Yellowstone Coalition showed up for the second day of the conference, but I don't consider the GYC to be a conservation group, but rather a rich landowner apologist group).

Jack Ward Thomas was the master of ceremonies for the conference and the RMEF even got Todd Wilkinson to cover it and later write a glowing article for RMEF's Bugle Magazine about it. It was quite the propaganda event for stockgrower/hunter cooperation. Right.

However, when you got past the propaganda it was clear that the sole purpose of the conference was to secure "hunter" support and cover for brucellosis management of elk, with the RMEF ostensibly representing all elk hunters. In other words, the purpose of the conference was to bless bison-style elk management in Montana. By now, we should all know what that means--disease "management" of elk by the Montana Department of Livestock. If you like how DOL is managing bison for disease, you'll love how DOL manages elk.

I and Glenn Hockett of the Gallatin Wildlife Association, both of us elk hunters as well as conservationists, got wind of the conference and essentially crashed it by demanding invitations. Since government agencies were involved, the RMEF couldn't turn us down, although the RMEF did call the cops to protect everyone's right to free speech. That was a laugh. It was nothing more than attempted intimidation by cop. It didn't work.

By our presence and "free speech," we were able to blunt any agreement on disease management of elk. One consequence of our success is Montana State Senator Debbie Barrett's current "place-holder" bill to hand disease management of elk over to the Department of Livestock. We'll see where that goes. At least, Barrett's bill is a straightforward anti-elk bill--the Stockgrowers and the DOL have been forced into the open after they couldn't covertly secure "hunter" support for taking over elk management.

The point is of course that on the one hand, David Allen blathers about the alleged threat of wolves to elk, yet on the other hand he's more than willing to hand elk management over to the Montana DOL. That's not elk conservation--that's betrayal of elk.

Elk hunters, especially members of the RMEF, should chew on that fact for a while.

RH

George, well said on all accounts. It was from our fathers we learned the ethics of hunting and the greater satisfaction of enjoying the outdoors. It was not just for the kill.

George - excellent article! I wish that more hunters were knowledgeable about the many ecological benefits provided by recovering wolf populations, and willing to "share" their desired prey species with the wolves and other top predators that are indispensable to achieving those benefits. I also wish that articles like this would be published in sportsmen magazines like Field and Stream, and that the video "Lords of Nature" would be shown on sportsmen TV shows.

George is so right on in his commentary on Elk and Deer hunters who only want"easy prey" in our forests and meadows.............The true sportsman recognizes that deer, elk, moose, pronghorn and caribou that are not being chased by wolves are simply "LARGE DOGS WITH ANTLERS" and not the finely tuned individually tuned species that were placed on this earth. I know some hunters who are attuned with their surroundings when out in the bush and who thrill to actually pursuing and outsmarting their quarry.................as well as thrill to when their quarry eludes them through their agility, guile and smarts. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat is the cornerstone of all true hunters...............all of them knowing that it is a sign of their knowledge of the ones they stalk in combinaion with their woodsman experience that periodically get them their deer............not some leisurely walk in the woods overpopulated with too many hoofed critters due to extirpation of wolves, bears and cougars by us human predators............Never optimum fun to beat a "C" tennis player when you are an "A" player............much more satisfying to beat a fellow "A" or "A+" player knowing how much effort and focus that took to achieve victory................Same is true in the bush..................truly satisfying to claim a kill amidst all the other strong predators (wolves, bears, cougars) who are seeking to do the same. Keep all the cogs and wheels in the system and the system will yield trophy take............not overbrowed terrain with non-vigilant deer and elk ripe for the unskilled weekend warrior.............Go George.........you have my vote!

http://www.coyotes-wolves-cougars.blogspot.com supports Wuerthner's views!!!!!!

I was talking to an outfitter last night and he was lamenting the fact that so many "modern" hunters seem disconnected with the idea of wilderness. They want convenience and ease, not challenge and renewal.

Taz

That is an interesting observation. Thanks for the comment.

George, your article doesn't display on my computer. This page displays and the comments are here; but, the box that should contain the article itself, your article, is just a blank. Is there a problem with the website or just my computer?

Our apologies for the display problems, this story was slightly miscategorized in our CMS. All is well now.

As always, thanks to everyone for being part of the conversation!

George, can you explain why wolves and only wolves were able to control elk numbers when environmental groups were insisting that only wolves could save Yellowstone, now that they have taken out far, far more elk that anyone ever predicted, it isn't the wolves, it is all of those things that were not sufficient to control elk and moose.
They once sold more permits in the Gardiner area that the number of elk left, hunters did not take them out, wolves killing 1 1/2 to 2.4 elk per month eliminated them. Since 2236 elk were counted in that herd this winter and the combination count was 6010, that leaves just over 3700 elk left inside of Yellowstone in the northern herd. That is a historic low since records have been kept. Sadly the Norris/Firehole herd is extinct or nearly so and they never migrated so hunters were not the problem.
No one predicted this kind of situation, and no one in charge is willing to take any responsibility for coming up with a solution.

Excellent article. What fun would hunting be if it were easy? It would be as fun as fishing in a pond full of hungry hatchery trout; i.e., not fun. I love to go fishing even if I don't catch a fish. My brother has gone elk hunting with his friend every year for at least 20 years. He has never shot an elk (I don't think he really wants to), but he always has great wildlife stories from sitting out in the forest. I hope we are lucky enough to someday see the wild wolves that are colonizing Oregon and Washington where we live. What a thrill that would be. It sounds to me like elk populations have been brought into a better balance with their habitat, which means their population will rise and fall more naturally rather than being sustained at an artificially high number. We have so many elk here in western Washington that WDFW has hunters come in and kill them on private property and the state has to reimburse people for losses resulting from elk.

It seems to me that some hunters can't enjoy hunting without bringing home an elk every time. I say, if you win the game every time, it takes the fun out of it.

Todd:

I would not agree with your statement that no one predicted that elk numbers would be lower. They may not have predicted the exact number--and no one can do that--but we certainly know from other places that wolves and other predators can depress prey species sometimes for only a few years, sometimes for a decade or more.

What is the "natural" carrying capacity is going to vary over time.

There is evidence from many parts of the country from Alaska to Maine how wildlife populations vary over time for a host of reasons. Often there is some habitat quality changes--massive fires for instance leading to increases in shrubs, which in turn, supports higher populations of elk and moose, is only one example. But as the forest grows back, and shrubs decline, we have fewer elk and moose--with or without predators. But generally, predators will hasten this decline because elk and moose on poor quality habitat will not be able to support high predation levels.

The topography makes a difference as well. For instance, elk living in high mountain valleys (like the Madison elk herd in Yellowstone) with deep snows are more vulnerable to predators than animals that can move more frequently to lower elevations.

But with all these situations, at some point predators expend more energy trying to locate prey than they find. Their own numbers decline--sometimes to zero. This gives prey species time to recover.

What one would expect--as a generation--is for prey and predator numbers to oscillate over time.

A good example of this was recently seen at Hart Mountain NWR in Oregon. Back in the 1990s, pronghorn numbers were on the decline. The state of Oregon blamed coyote predation and wanted to kill coyotes at Hart Mountain. Research shows that coyotes were indeed taking quite a few pronghorn fawn.

But there were some who suggested part of the problem in pronghorn reproduction was due to inclement weather as well as poor habitat quality (due to livestock grazing). The livestock were eliminated, and no predator control was implemented. Pronghorn numbers have steadily climbed--though they are probably close to the carrying capacity now.

But all this took several decades to occur. Had we just rushed in and killed coyotes, we would have never learned this lesson.

And there it is in the last comment by George....eliminate hunting, and eliminate livestock grazing, and everything will be just fine.
Never mind the report that the moose in YNP (I'm guessing Shiras variety) are in the toilet as well, in the paper yesterday.
Bottom line is you can have ungulate wildlife and wolves, or ungulate wildlife and hunting, but not all three. Hunters' interests -- and guess what, I like to hunt with reasonable chance of success -- are being thrown under the bus, while hunters bought the fuel AND the bus.

Dave

You are incorrect about hunting and predators. It's not a choice between hunting and predators at all. In other places like Minnesota for instance, there is no hunting of wolves. There are plenty of deer hunters and deer. Similarly in California, it's illegal to kill cougars, and hunting hasn't disappeared in the Golden State.

There are large areas in Alaska (national parks) that have no predator control and plenty of game.

There is no doubt that in some places at some time, one will find that hunting opportunities diminished, but across entire state it would be unusual to see huge losses in hunting opportunity.

I have hunted in Idaho for elk on and off during the past decade, and our group always picks areas with wolves. We have always been successful.

No, predators do in fact have an uncontrolled and unregulated impact upon game.
Human hunters get seasons and bag limits with which they must comply or eventually get caught. Predators are in essence, in terms of game, poachers. No season, no bag limit, eat the young, all year long at every opportunity.
Never mind that at the time of settlement and hoovering out the game herds, Indian hunting pressure was for a long time far below historic levels due to smallpox and other Eurodisease. So with the Indians gone there was lots of extra din-din for lots of predators, and a false impression of overabundance.
The fact remains, a lot of sportspeople are seeing real impacts to their hunting experience in terms of success rates, in terms of no longer having animals in their favored locations. Such as the sportsmen asking to close off the Bitterroot for the West Fork herd.
RMEF members pay a lot of attention to their sport. As mushy as RMEF was to the issue several years ago, the fact is, they gave wolves the benefit of the doubt until the results became pretty much unequivocal to folks who live and breathe elk, elk, elk.
In short, the folks most affected by this pay the most attention and are feeling the most impact. And their perceptions matter.

There are 3,500 wolves in Minnesota. Here's what those wolves have done to the deer herd.

Managing the deer herd
by Mark Steil, Minnesota Public Radio



The Minnesota whitetail deer herd is estimated at one million animals, and the DNR says that high population may lead to the spread of chronic wasting disease into the state. (Photo courtesy of Wisconsin DNR)
This may be a pivotal year for Minnesota's deer herd. With more than one million whitetails in the state, game managers are wondering if they can keep the population in check. Even with heavy hunting pressure, the number of deer keeps growing. Meanwhile, the harmful effects of the deer population keep growing. Traffic accidents, plant depredation and disease are the most obvious worries.

Worthington, Minn. — Many people can remember when seeing deer in the wild was an unexpected treat. Lynn Holmstrom of Granite Falls has lived in her home on the edge of the city 24 years.

"When we first moved in, there might be a mom with a couple of fawns, and that would be about it. Then they were fun to watch," Holmstrom says. "Now they're not."

Holmstrom says at least a dozen deer feed regularly on the plants and trees in her neighborhood.

"I hate to shoot Bambi, but on the other hand, it's just getting out of hand. They're all over, there's just too many of them."
Larger view
Image Lynn Holmstrom

Hunters take about 200,000 deer a year in Minnesota. Predators and traffic accidents kill another 100,000 or more. But even though one-third of the Minnesota deer herd dies each year, wildlife managers are still worried about controlling the population. Deer can reproduce rapidly because the state offers plenty of food and shelter.

Steve Merchant of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources says controlling deer numbers is a priority.

"That is, I think, the No. 1 challenge facing wildlife managers. And it's one that we don't take lightly," says Merchant.

There's no better place to see the impact of one million deer than on Minnesota highways. It's not unusual to see a dead deer by the side of the road. The DNR estimates 15,000 deer die in vehicle collisions each year. State crash statistics show deer cause more major accidents in Minnesota than drunk drivers.

Mary Wells Gorman lives on the west side of the Twin Cities. Twice she's been in cars that hit deer. Even thought the accidents occured more than seven years ago, she still remembers them vividly.
Larger view
Image Plants in Lynn Holmstrom's yard, eaten by deer

"My kids screaming -- and us getting showered with glass. I see them in my mind again. It was just very frightening, very scary," Gorman says.

She's reminded of the accidents every time she sees a dead deer on the highway.

"It leaves us now a sense that there's an unforeseeable, uncontrollable force that is on the road. There's no way to brace yourself or to understand what calamity is coming upon you," she says.

Gorman is far from alone. By one estimate there are almost 20,000 deer-vehicle crashes in the state each year. Last year those accidents killed five people and injured 500. Vehicle damage was in the millions of dollars. But the DNR's Steve Merchant says the accidents are not always the deer's fault.

"People seem to drive faster and we drive more, and we tend to be in a hurry to where we're going to. So I think it's a combination of having high deer numbers, and perhaps drivers that aren't being as observant as they should be out there, and it leads to problems," says Merchant.
Larger view
Image One of the many deer killed by cars each year

The biggest trouble spot is in the area with the most cars -- the Twin Cities. Roughly one-fourth of the state's deer crashes occur there. Controlling the Twin Cities herd is difficult, because most of the area is closed to public hunting. And Merchant says public pressure against killing deer makes it difficult to hold special hunts in problem areas.

"Our view is that we should be hunting deer wherever it's safe to hunt deer. But lots of local units of governments don't see it that way," Merchant says.

The genesis of the state's huge deer herd can be traced back 30 years. In 1971, the DNR closed the deer hunting season after a series of severe winters sharply reduced numbers.

At the same time, the agency started a new deer management system. The state was divided into more than 120 units, and the kill in each unit was controlled to ensure maximum deer numbers. The state's whitetail population more than tripled in 30 years. But some say the system has worked too well -- even some hunters says there are too many deer.

"I would hope that DNR would say, we need to cut down on the deer population right now. Let's be proactive instead of waiting until after the fact," says T.R. Michels, who makes his living in the outdoors.
Larger view
Image Mary Wells Gorman was involved in two car-deer accidents.

From his base in southeast Minnesota, Michels guides hunters, and writes and speaks about deer. He's worried about chronic wasting disease. Although CWD has not been found in the state's deer herd, he believes it will show up in time. If that happens, Michels says the more deer there are, the easier it will be for the disease to spread.

"We don't know how CWD is transmitted, whether it's airborne, whether it's urine, it's feces, it's placenta, saliva or anything else. We simply do not know," Michels says. "What we do know is that when deer are confined in small areas, and they're sick, other deer are going to get it."

Michels says anyone feeding deer should stop. Beyond that, he says it's up to the DNR to reduce deer numbers. In fact, Michels says the agency should revamp its entire management scheme.

Michels says the DNR has done a great job of enlarging the deer herd -- but it has come at a price. Disease and traffic accidents are a couple of examples. And he says many hunters are unhappy about another effect of the current deer management system.
Larger view
Image T.R. Michels says the deer population should be reduced.

"Trophy hunting in Minnesota is almost non-existent. There ain't that many good bucks around," Michels says.

DNR managers protect female deer to a greater extent than males. This maintains a large breeding herd and high deer numbers. But Michels says it also means bucks are over-hunted -- few survive more than a year or two. Michels would like to see more does killed each year, which would reduce overall deer numbers. And by killing fewer males, the ratio of trophy bucks would increase.

The DNR has not shown much interest in the idea. Surveys show hunters don't like it either. Most say they're happy with the current management scheme. The DNR's Steve Merchant says hunter opinion is important.

"They basically pay for the management of whitetail deer in Minnesota, and so they do have a strong influence on our policy," Merchant says.

The DNR has been criticized for paying too much attention to hunters. People who hit a deer on the highway might wonder if the DNR wants a million deer in the state solely to please hunters.

"We aren't beholden to deer hunting groups," says Merchant. "But we certainly do listen to them, and they're very important."

Hunters will be very important this fall. DNR officials are counting on them to take a large number of deer to keep the state's million plus white-tail population under control.

The number of people pursuing deer in recent years has increased, but at a slower rate than in the past. That's a cause for concern, during a time when game managers are more anxious than ever about the number of deer in the state.

Gosh darn it, but that's Minnesota, Geo. Not the same.
The issue of game quality is different in Montana as well.
The only place around here I would call polluted with deer is Helena, and maybe the Swan and upper 93.
Nor would I say there's a bounty of elk any more. Come to think of it, I haven't seen more than one or two elk in the past year when at least one a month was more like it.
CWD eradication/control doesn't need wolves. If there are infections, then those units become eradication units by whatever means.
Letting predators run the table is like having poachers do the same. Sorry, don't buy it.

Good Lord people. How many times do we have to remind you that the wolves have free reign over YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK???!! Hunters have every right to want to hunt elk successfully every year. The wolves have Yellowstone 24/7/365 and nobody bothers them. They don't need the entire frickin country. Get a life fools!!!

Dave:

You are still missing the point of my piece. If we don't have periods of time when elk and deer (or other animal) numbers are depressed, we lose habitat quality due to overbrowsing. Plants need a break from too many elk and deer--just as elk and deer need a break from predators occasionally. Fortunately under natural conditions, no group--predator or herbivore gets to dominate the field forever.

Any decline due to predation is not going to affect all herds in all places all at the same time. This is different from things like changing climate--a major drought for instance that can affect herds across a large area.

In other places where there have been unexploited wolf and other predators (cougars) two things help to mitigate predation effects. One is the social interactions which I have mentioned previously in other essays. Wolves, cougars, etc. have territories and they maintain them against intruders (i.e kill intruders_). This both limits population growth of predators and also creates buffer areas where there is little predation pressure. These areas shift over time.

The other biological consequence that is not discussed by agency folks, RMEF, and others is that indiscriminate hunting may actually increase conflicts. I've mentioned this before. By upsetting pack social structure, hunting may actually increase predation rates not only on livestock, but also on game animals.

Let me explain. Let's say you have 100 wolves. You can have 100 wolves that are mostly younger animals or wolves that have a higher percentage of adults. In exploited populations, the wolves tend to be younger. There are more packs, adults bred at a younger age and often produce higher number of pups, but fewer adults to help with the hunting of prey.

Two consequences. Young growing wolves "need" more biomass than adults--just as teenagers consume more calories than adults. So if you have a lot of packs with a higher percentage of young, you can actually increase the predation rate on prey species. In other words, hunting of wolves, unless you are going to eliminate them entirely (which no one is suggesting in the agencies) means you may actually wind up creating a higher predation rate on elk and deer--the opposite of what you and others who demand more wolf hunting actually want to see.

This becomes a self perpetuating circle whereby hunters kill wolves. The remaining wolves produce more pups, which in turn require more meat, and thus kill more elk and deer. Which drives hunters crazy who then say we need to kill even more wolves, and so on. It's great for the Fish and Game since they get to charge you for the right to make more wolves which they can charge you again to shoot. And it's also great for those ranchers, oil companies, loggers, subdividers, and all the rest of the land despoilers who get off the hook because hunters are all focused on wolves instead of the real factors that ultimately determines hunting success over the long haul--quality -habitat.

Agencies manage for population numbers, not social units. Managing for populations is a very blunt tool. Large predators are social animals, and unless we start considering their social interaction we will fail miserably--even satisfying those hunters who want to see more elk and deer.

George Wuerthner,

How do you propose to stop wolf predation on livestock?
I somewhat agree that populations will have cycles,both predator and prey,and that the ungulate and cervid populations need to decline at times to give the "browse" time to recover.
The problem with the wolves is that at some point,probably soon,they will be close to suburban areas,and start killing pets.
Then there will be people screaming for "something to be done"about the wolves.
Those who raise livestock have every right to have a say in wolf management.What do you think it costs the rancher who loses several cow/calf pairs a spring to wolves?
Remember,when the gray wolf was re-introduced,it was to Yellowstone,that was the agreement.
When man moved into the west,and built homes,that drove out a lot of the predators,man killed off a lot of the remaining predators,now,man has to manage the prey species.
Everyone wants to portray hunters as the bad guys,we put far more money toward wildlife management programs than any other group of people,and the point was to manage the elk,and deer herds for maximum hunter harvest,not maximum wolf harvest.
Yellowstone is a park,keep the wolf population high there,the original agreement was for 500 animals outside the park in MT,ID,and WY,now people want that number increased to a thousand?
That will end elk hunting for decades.

Mountain Hunter

What do I say to livestock producers? I say that for a hundred years you have successfully transferred one cost (among many costs) of your business on society as a whole as well as natural systems by eliminating large predators from the landscape.

Livestock producers have imposed their cows on natural lands and wildlife and they have never paid the real cost of their production--whether it is the riparian areas they destroy, the rivers they dewater for their irrigation, the weeds their cows spread, the pollution of water, the loss of forage that would otherwise support native herbivores, etc.

Now livestock producers are going to have to internalize those costs, just as we forced polluting factories to internalize the cost of their products when we said to them with the passage of the Clean Water Act that you can't use our rivers for sewers and waste deposal units.

There are ways to avoid having your cows (and sheep) eaten--most cost more. Too bad. Time to pay the real cost of your operations. This includes things like calving and lambing sheds, having herders/shepherds, guard dogs, electric fences, removing dead animals (carrion) from the fields, and so on. None of these things work in isolation, but there is good research to suggest that if one practices a combination of these things, you can nearly eliminate predation.

Just to give one example, one study I read showed that removal of carrion could reduce predation on a farm by 55 times over those farms that did not remove carrion.

Yes this costs money. But it is time for people eating beef and lamb to pay the real costs of that production. And some ranchers will be in a better position to absorb those costs and implement those changes. Those who can't shouldn't be in business anymore than the factories that can no longer pollute our rivers.

As for pets, etc. just as in California where it is illegal to hunt cougars, there are a few animals killed every year that wander too close to homes, people, and so forth. This is a strategic removal that targets specific animals--and this is entirely different from the indiscriminate removal of animals by hunters.

George,

Are you serious? You expect ranchers to cough up the extra expense caused by wolf predation?? You are out of your mind if you think that will fly. You are over complicating a very simple issue. I couldn't even read your posts because they were so long and confusing. We manage other large predators by hunting. Let's stop playing God and just sell wolf tags with no quota from September 15 to the end of February. It really is that simple. The wolf factory is YNP and I promise you, they will be just fine.

George Wuerthner,
The ranchers will never go for that,plus they have too much political clout for that to become reality. What you are suggesting is that only the large,wealthy operations survive. So you would put the independent rancher out of buisiness,in order to increase wolf populations?
Leave the wolf to Yellowstone,let the state wildlife managers decide how to manage the wildlife in their respective states.
As I said the elk and deer herds have been managed for maximum harvest by hunters,not by wolves,which were not part of the equation when these management programs were initiated.
The reason the programs are managed for max. hunter harvest is that the hunters pay the most money into these wildlife management programs.
The wolves were supposed to be held to a populatuion of around 500 animals outside the park,not 1,000,not unlimited.That was the agreement when the gray wolf was re-introduced to Yellowstone.Leave the experiment in Yellowstone,not enough is known about the introduction of an an apex predator into an ecosystem.

However,I do agree with you on the damage done to public lands by grazing livestock. Our gov. gave the grazing rights to the ranchers.Maybe that should be the focus of lawsuits,not stopping wolf hunting. Not going to happen though,most people eat meat.
Where did you get your info that most people want wolf populations to grow in the west?
Take a poll from residents of Montana,Idaho,and Wyoming,and see what the results are.

The so-called lazy hunters that many of you bring up are a small percentage of hunters.
Just because you don't agree with something,or support it,does not mean you make generalizations based on a minority of the group you oppose.

Aw gee,
Never mind that WOLVES have a cost that is being externalized. Defenders and other "nonprofits" internalize donations from their hype campaigns, then sue the Feds to inflict wolves on game populations and livestock producers.
Hadn't been for sportsmen and the willingness to self-assess through licensing, wouldn't be any wolf food. Never mind the ranchers with a certain tolerance for a certain level of loss from elk and deer browse on cow food (including hay) have in fact helped ungulate populations in many regions.
Never mind that when we were told it would be 300 wolves in 30 pairs, and we were told they would come off as "nonessential, experimental," the REASONABLE among us thought the benefit of the doubt was the wiser course while keeping our suspicions well in mind.
The suspicion, that this was really a wolf snout under the tent, has been affirmed. Even Bob Ream, fagawsakes, is saying that more wolves need to be hunted. I have met Bob, dislike him and his politics, so when he is allowing an increase in take to even be considered, that's a big signal.
Fact is, the people most affected by wolves have had enough, and are going to take steps. And more than a few shots, by golly.

Mtn Hunter - Maybe you're right about the % of lazy hunters, but maybe not. A lot of the hunters I see do their hunting by motor vehicle. They complain bitterly about motor access restrictions because it reduces their hunting. They're not willing to get out and walk. Maybe the generalizing is being done both ways?

To turn things around, the livestock and hunting industry (i.e.: state game depts.) inflicted the loss of apex predators on those who aren't connected with those industries. 1st thing the cattlemen did was start exterminating these animals. Turns out these predators were important regulators themselves, do a better job than state F&G;'s over the long run, and lead to improvements in environmental quality. Now the next task is to reduce environmental damage caused by irresponsible livestock grazing, range "improvement" projects, etc. Livestock operations will continue probably at reduced levels. This won't much effect national beef production since most beef comes from elsewhere than the Rocky Mountain region. So you'll still be able to eat beef, you'll still be able to hunt (although you may have to get better at it), fishing will improve, be more pronghorn around.

Forgive me for not going back to reread all the posts but if the average hunter is lazy then by God the wolves will NEVER be in danger again unless they stand alongside the road. So are hunters generally lazy or what? Between YNP, Glacier and huge remote pieces of Forest and Wilderness the wolf stands a more than obvious chance of survival after being legally hunted. We are no longer killing them 12 months out of the year by poisoning and trapping and exterminating with helicopters unless done so for damage control. I wish this much concern was directed toward things that really matter in life. I'm afraid there is so much concern because there is money involved for those that want to have unlimited numbers of wolves. Sad and pathetic.

taz alago

There were no state game departments around when ranchers/cattlemen exterminated wolves. They came along later.
It was/is hunters who paid the most money into state game departments,in return,the game depts. manage deer and elk populations to maximize hunter harvest,not to introduce an extinct apex predator into the plan.
The wolves were supposed to be introduced into Yellowstone,and a small number allowed outside the park,to protect roaming animals.The number was then changed from 30 pairs,to 500 animals,now groups want to increase the number to 1,000 animals.
Poll the poeple in Montana,Idaho,and Wyoming,most do not want more wolves.
No one I know hunts elk from a motor vehicle,it involves a trip on horseback to a spike camp, then a lot of hiking in difficult terrain from there.
How much money has been spent on endless lawsuits to stop legal wolf hunting?
When man moved into the west,it changed things,you can not fix that by re-introducing wolves,where are the buffalo herds for the wolves to prey on? Where is all the small game? Gone,due to development.
In the past two elk seasons,I have seen more wolf tracks,than elk tracks,in 3 different wilderness areas.The elk were not overpopulated in these areas,now I doubt that there is a sustainable population left.
Less wolves equal more elk.
Saying most hunt from a motor vehicle is like saying most who are against whaling go to the antarctic,and ram whaling ships with their boats.

Wolves were also reintroduced to Central Idaho. We have the largest Forest Service Wilderness in the lower 48 - the Frank Church River of No Return at 2.3 million acres. Wolves should have a refuge here. But no, big game outfitters hate wolves and killed a lot of them in the 7-month long wolf hunting season, including pups, yearlings and collared wolves. You can see the gloating faces of these wolf haters holding their "trophy" on websites like Mile High Outfitters, Challis ID, and other anti-wolf websites (like HuntWolves). You can also see photos of scores of black bears (shot over bait), mountain lion (treed by hounds - some sport), dead mountain goats and big horn sheep, plus more big trophy elk than once can count, being displayed by "sportsmen" who don't give a rat's ass except killing something.

Mountain hunter, the numbers exceeded a thousand by the time they got around to even trying to delist, they counted over 1700 this years so we can probably add at least 50% for those that are truly wild and never counted. Now they insist they need 3-5000 of them, a little bit different than the 300 they asked for.
The funny thing is, the enviros are doing pretty much the same thing that folks did a hundred years ago, getting rid of the animals they don't like. In this case it is elk and moose, deer seem less affected, probably because there isn't enough food for the energy expended. Those in the early days who got rid of the wolves did it to survive, the excuse today? Fundraising by professional begging and lawsuits for millions that they pay no taxes on.
One elk herd inside of Yellowstone that never migrated has been essentially extirpated since the wolves were hauled in. The others, including those never counted are markedly lower. Where is the difference in sacrificing one animal for another today or 100 years ago?

taz alago, I missed your statement that "ranchers" eliminated the apex predator. That simply is not true if you are talking about todays professional food producers, wolves were eliminated from the east coast westward by the very earliest settlers. Ranching per sey came many years later, but in both cases they were protecting the food supply, and in the case of early settlers, they were also protecting lives of vulnerable humans such as kids.

Todd you said,

The funny thing is, the enviros are doing pretty much the same thing that folks did a hundred years ago, getting rid of the animals they don't like. In this case it is elk and moose

The same could be said about you hunters. Environs don't dislike elk, but it is common knowledge you hunters dislikes wolves and there is no doubt about that. Elk were put on earth for wolves to eat them. Elk are the wolves food source and any person with half a brain understands and accepts that. The fact is it is you hunters don't care about wildlife. You only care about killing it. I doubt you would make a big stink about elk if you weren't allowed to kill them. Would you even care about elk if you weren't allowed to kill them? Any person with some common sense knows you hunters only care about is killing elk and that is why you despise wolves. You go on and on about how wolves are killing elk, but you hunters do the same ol thing as wolves. You hunters kill elk and you piss and moan when the wolves do the same thing.

Save the wolves:
I actually do not hunt except with cameras, and never have. The elk loss I am familiar with is in Yellowstone itself. I have posted the number of wolves "extirpated" in the park during the 42 years they were hunted. That number is 56 adulats and 80 pups.
A total of 41 adults were hauled in over a 2 year period, 31 Canadian wolves and 10 cattle killers from Montana.
As for the hunters they do kill 1 elk per year each, and they provide money to the states for wildlife management to do so. That feeds a human family for the year. Wolves each kill 1.8 elk per month. On top of that there are the other predators that live in Yellowstone.

Todd, you said enviros don't care for elk, but that is a flat out lie. I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I do support wolves. However, it is common knowledge hunters despise wolves for doing what they have to do in order to survive and that is kill elk. It is understandable that human hunters don't like competition from other predators. You claim they kill for sport, but do you understand how hypocritical that sounds given the fact that hunters kill wolves for sport as well as other predators? The things you fault wolves for are the same exact things hunters do. Bottom line is no one can blame wolves for trying to survive. Hunters are an ignorant bunch, a good deal of them anyways and feel that elk belong to them.

I support the wolves, hunt and enjoy the outdoors 12 months out of the year. Protecting the wolves from management is terrible management. Enviros are simply milking the system by trying to exceed a number of wolves that can NEVER be reached. They know this. That's what the scam is. They cry and lie to people that will give them a buck for as long as they can get it. They don't care about wolves, elk, only their own pocket book. The justice system is a joke for allowing this to go on.


Owl Creek,

You say you have the largest Wilderness in the lower 48. Why do you feel the need to protect wolves in that large of an area? Let the wolves be hunted to maintain their wildness and they will learn to protect themselves. We no longer poison or go in to wolf dens and bludgeon the pups.

You people think that wolves will be threatened if we hunt them because that is what you are told by the enviros. Stop listening to these scam artists.

Thanks George for a lot of common sense. And I don't find fault with many of the other comments by folks who have "passion" for their point of views. I am a "serial hiker" and lover of the out- doors whose enjoyment is componded by the presence of all the "players" including the predators. Now this may make me an "enviro" in the eyes of some that I accept with pride as this label means that am a "lobbist" for a healthy planet.

Steve, all of the wolves DESERVE to live out their lives, not be gunned down by some coward with a gun. You hunters are so hypocritical. You hunters care NOTHING about elk. You only care about killing elk and don't try to tell me different. Would you give a dam about elk if you weren't allowed to kill them? I doubt it. It is a human choice to hunt elk. For wolves, it is a need for them if they want to survive.

Save, the wolves would have been able to live out their lives in the Canadian wilderness where they were captured if they had not been darted and captured to haul into Yellowstone and Idaho to live around humans so enviros could see them with a minimum of effort. Wolves and humanity are not compatible and those who insisted on bringing them to mix with human habitation are the ones responsible for the demise of those killed.

Wolf lovers' put your money where your mouth is. (Wolf lovers and true hunters are an oxymoron) Hunters, Departments of Game & Fish, and also the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation have brought ungulate wildlife back to record levels and now we are seeing many of the herds being absolutely decimated by wolves. Taking man out of the equation is the only way that you wolf lovers are going to restore a so called ecological balance. Yet it would take longer with no livestock to supplement the wolves diets.

Dave is right, you can have ungulate wildlife and wolfs or ungulate wildlife and hunting but not all three, basically without sacrificing one group or the other. Wolves are cruel killing machines that completely decimate ungulate herds by the huge amount of ungulates consumed by them but also by sport killing (wolf lovers claim this isn't so) but is a fact of life. Why do you morons refuse to acknowledge why the wolves were removed from the landscape here in the lower 48. The settlers had no choice and this allowed them to raise livestock and wildlife numbers had a chance to recover, along with the management of unregulated hunting also helping.

George, perhaps you should have a one on one debate with Dave Allen (RMEF CEO) or as he did, inviting the radical green groups who are attacking him. I don't think you can back up much of the baloney you espouse in your diatribes, as well as the radical's baloney. Dave Allen finally stood up to the people who want livestock and hunters off the land. Thanks Dave.

Nice try George but you haven't convinced anyone but it seems to me you are just preaching to your choir. It seems you like to hear yourself blowing in the wind. But then again it is what a lot of the bloggers on this thread like to hear also.

Wolves have a place but it is not here. In Canada where there are hundreds of thousands of Caribou, the wolves play an important role in helping balance nature. Yellowstone's elk herd was pretty much managed by hunting when the herds came out of the Park. There used to be some pretty good moose hunting up there but the numbers of tags have been cut to nearly nothing because the wolves have almost decimated the moose.

Look at Alaska. When airiel gunning was stopped for a few years much of the caribou and moose herds were virtually wiped out by wolves, and by some wildlife experts it will take 30 to 35 years to bring back the herds even with the present resumed wolf hunting only on a smaller scale. Wolves have to be managed and hunting them plays a large part, but to do so according to George and many radicals, it messes up the family social structures, so just let mother nature takes its course. Fine and dandy, if we could just get rid of all those darned old human beings who have become the supreme predator and land managers.

Steve - Re. wolves in Wilderness. Big game outfitters and trappers think they own the Wilderness and if they don't want predators killing "their" elk, they will kill the predators, esp wolves. Trappers put snares out along trails & bridges and IDFG just looks the other way, afraid of telling them it's illegal. The latest anti-wolf plan, being advocated by Tony McDermott, IDFG commissioner and wolf hater, is to hold trapping classes for outfitters, hunters, ranchers & others so they can start killing wolves using traps & snares that so far, only Wildlife Services is allowed to do. There's a lot of unemployment and underemployed rednecks that would jump at the chance to snare or trap wolves year around. IDFG and its anti- predator commissioners, continue to make it clear that they have no use for wolves and it's no holds barred - well, they say they won't use poison. But as we speak Wildlife Service is killing wolves and some of those are lactating females. IDFG won't admit it and it's impossible to get any info out of Wildlife Services.

Balderdash Todd. Wolves were introduced to restore balance and halt landscape degradation that had been ongoing in YP for 50 years and that managers had been unable to stop. Ten years after wolf reintr, YP riparian areas and aspen had shown remarkable recovery because ungulates were no longer standing around munching munching munching. Wolves keep'em on the move. Species diversity increased, pronghorn populations increased, coyote populations went down. Elk pops in YP had been so high at times they were corralled and shot by rangers.

The livestock industry promoted the extirpation of wolves in the West, no question. It was at its behest that state and federal hunters killed wolves, that bounties were put on wolves, and it is the primary foe of wolves today as it has always been, no matter that in Idaho and Montana most wolf territory is on public land and it has no more right to monopolize public land use than any other citizen group.

Tom, brought them back so hunters can kill them. I know you hunters think you should be catered to because you pay to kill animals, but I am sorry, the elk are the wolves preferred food source. Enviros care more about wildlife than you ever will Tom. As I said before, you hunters care nothing about wildlife except for shooting it. Wolves belong in Idaho. They were brought back there for a reason Tom. You don't like it? Pack your bags and move somewhere else.

Tom Klumker is an outfitter, so that right there tells you he has no credibility what so ever. Outfitters obviously hate wolves because wolves make it harder for outfitters to find their clients an easy elk to shoot and kill.

Again, taz, wolves were extirpated in the east where they came into contact with humans many, many years before a single rancher rode into Wyoming or Montana. Did you know that Daniel Boone had a child that was killed by wolves?
Yes, the willows have grown since the moose have been eliminated, other trees have evidently done well too, although it is the willows that moose eat that are the most dramatic. How many folks do you think come to Yellowstone to see willows?
Why didn't wolf restoration start in the original colonies and work westward? Too many problems for them to put up with? It is revealing that the people most adamant about the advantages of wolves also have lots of excuses why they, themselves cannot put up with the problems wolves bring. Much easier to force them on low populated states that lacked the clout to prevent it. Bullying?
I don't know when you last visited the park, but the coyote population is much higer than it was before wolves, they are everywhere. Do you have the pronghorn antelope count? I have seen nothing to indicate tehy have increased, they are more visible in the Lamar because they seem to hang around the buffalo for safety? The wolves obviously have no impact on the buffs, which are way higher numbers than originally planned when they were brought in.

Todd - coyotes have learned to live with wolves, something people like yourself and others apparently are incapable of doing. I have watched coyotes and wolves many times and it's a real life show, better than anything on TV. I also saw a coyote that wolves had caught napping, and it was brutal, but at least the coyote didn't die from being trapped, snared or shot by a lamebrain predator hunter, or Wildlife Services (same difference).

Pronghorn antelope are flourishing where I live, likely because wolves have little interest in them and the coyotes who go after pronghorn fawns are less likely to put themselves into a vulnerable position where a wolf or wolves could see them. Ranchers are complaining about the lopers eating grass, that only their holy cows are supposed to eat. Same ranchers want coyotes & wolves killed.

Well Owl Creek, if you live over by Thermop as your name implies, you should have lots of antelope, as do all of us who live in the great state of Wyoming. The wolves have had little effect on the pronghorns for a very good reason, not much bang for the buck like elk or moose.

Todd you must be living in Chicago or New York. Nobody from Wyoming could be so ignorant of the role willows play in riparian systems and as a food source for, among many other important species, moose.

Never been either place. True native of Wyoming. Where did I say that willows have no place in the ecosystem? I'd have bet we were talking about wolves on this thread. browsing keeps them healthy, and in fact if they were not healthy they would not have grown so fast when the moose were eliminated.

Todd - I don't live in Wyoming, thank the Goddess of Nature for that.

Todd, wolves have never had it easy. The same attitudes that people had when the wolves were wiped out are here today in full effect. These animals are being persecuted for trying to survive and because of human greed and selfishness and ignorance from humans. Hunters and ranchers blame wolves for everything. What is your stance on wolves? I assume you want them hunted down and killed. Killing an animal just for trying to survive. Todd, difference between wolves and human coward hunters is that it is a choice to take an elk, for wolves it is a need to survive. Should wolves be killed to satisfy a hunter with a gun? I thought these hunters care so much about wildlife, but yet they have a complete lack of regard for the lives of wolves they kill. They fault wolves for killing elk and killing elk for sport when hunters do the same exact thing to some of the animals they kill. Like the guy who wrote this article said, Unfortunately, most hunters are single minded about what is important and ecological integrity takes a backseat to “getting their elk.” All hunters care about is getting their elk. They don't pay for conservation, they pay to make sure there are plenty of animals around for them to kill. That is the true intent. I have had chats with many hunters and most of them have the same feelings about wolves and refer to them as vermin and wildlife terrorists and we are expected to believe these people care about wildlife when all they do is kill it?

Let's face it, environmentalism is the one kind of discrimination against others that is socially acceptable. I guess it is in the makeup of humans to need to control other people, whether by slavery or forcing them to raise dangerous animals for you to visit. The whole thing is premised on what you can force others to do for you. I do not believe there is a single enviro or otherwise that has not killed something that is a problem for them personally. Mice, mosquitoes, squirrels, flies, rats, snakes, etc, even weeds.
Perhaps it is a need to feel superior. If it was truly about protecting wolves you would sacrifice whatever to have them where you live, not force others to deal with them.
If this was all about "a keystone species" needing restoration that restoration would have started on the east coast where they were first eradicated, but it is about showing your own superiority and proving it to those you consider inferior to you.

Todd, no matter where wolves are, people are sooner or later going to have to deal with them like when wolves attack livestock. That is a matter of fact. This is not about having others deal with them. Wolves were brought back to ID, MT, WY for a reason and if some people don't like it, too bad, move to somewhere else where they aren't wolves. We humans are not the only ones that have a right to live on this planet. Just because an animal is inconveniening your way of life does not mean it should be killed just because you dislike the animal. I agree wolves should be put back to places they once roamed, but the planet has changed since those times.

"save the wolves" and "outfitters are bums" you haven't a clue to accuse me and probably most outfitters I know of only wanting to kill wildlife. Just the opposite, we care far more for a healthy wildlife population and we believe in wildlife management as a tool to co-exist with mankind now that we have become the supreme predator and have with the European settlement changed the landscape. Wolves are like any species and with man in the equation need to be managed for a healthy balance of wildlife and a healthy environment.

People like you as Todd says only want to control people and your side of the equation basically want to somehow remove mankind from wildlife habitat and management and with the wolf program and the spotted owl are making huge strides in your ambitious endeavor. Public lands ranchers are under the big guns right now from especially some of the more radical environmental organizations like the Biological Diversity Center, Western Watersheds Management, National Wildlife Federation, WildEarth Guardians and several more. These groups want nothing more than to get rid of these nasty ole ranchers and hunters and consumptive users on the federal lands as well as most of the connecting private lands. The deep ecology movement spearheaded by Dr. Reed Noss and engineered by Dave Foreman (Earth First) used to advertise on their web site that they felt humans were no better than a cat, a rat or a snail.

As I said earlier wolves have a place but need to be managed if that is possible, to have harmony in a healthy balance of wildlife now that man has basically taken over much of their habitat. Wildlife Departments in most states do a good job in this balancing act and both Departments in the states of New Mexico and Arizona are working hard to strike a balance as well as Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

People of your persuasion "save the wolves" and "outfitters are bums" won't be happy until all ranchers, outfitters, hunters and the dependent small towns and communities dependent on natural resources are wiped off the map. Period.

Horse manure! The state of the wolf reintroduction down there, the outrageous local ranting by you hillbillies from Hell, and the number of those wolves that have been illegally taken discredits everything you say!

Well put, Tom. Its all about control to these environmental nazis. Even the author, George Wuerthner, is an antipeople, antisociety nut. I have read several of his narratives and believe that only a west void of people would make him happy. His rantings on ranching, farming, and this wolf issue only show his true colors. It is one thing to discuss range land issues and try to find solutions. It is quite different to discuss thoring all the people off the land so that wolves and buffalo can roam freely. PEOPLE live here now.

bigsky - obviously you have never met George Wuerthner. And you are clueless when it comes to the damage done by livestock grazing to the American West.

"the real mike"
How come is it that you never have anything to add to the discussion other than your belittling, ridiculous ranting about anyone who is against your idealistic utopian view of the world? Your vile attempt to discredit anyone who thinks contrary to your opinion, lacks any proof and your blathering hatred posted gives you no credibility, only shows your true colors.

"Owl Creek"
George Wuerthner's ridiculous assumptions are no better than the major radical environmental groups who David Allen (RMEF CEO) responded to very handily, while making their arguments nothing more than baloney. He invited them to a debate and so far I don't think they ever will because of their weak and biased arguments, and the lies they use to get the unsuspecting public on their side. Its all about the money for many of these groups not only from the donations of every day citizens they dupe but also the tremendous amount of taxpayer money they realize from the Judgment Funds of the Equal Access to Justice Act from their teams of hot shot highly paid lawyers and the hundreds of lawsuits they are using to rid the land of the people whose livestock have supposedly damaged the land of the American West. Herein lies the rub, get rid of the western ranchers anyway they can and they are the major objective of their war on the west. Thank God for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation finally taking a stand on the issue and thank you David Allen for making the opposition set up and take notice of the real world out here.

The poor wolf is just a pawn in the war against the consumptive users of the Western landscape. Many of the Green Advocacy Groups (GAGS) care nothing about the wolf. They only care about changing the guard on who controls the real estate in the west, public and private. I don't know if George is one of them but at the very least he is playing into their spider web. The true wildlife lovers should distance themselves from these GAGS, including people who truly like and want a healthy wolf population. Live and let live.

To Tom Klunker - you have no idea regarding the groups that work to protect wild places and wildlife. I haven't heard the acronym "GAG" for quite a while. Something a first grader might think up and a second grader put into a public forum.

FYI - Defenders did respond to Dave Allen's attack on pro-wolf groups. I know former members of Rocky Mt Elk Foundation who have stopped supporting the group, because its leader sounds like Ron Gillett.

The War on the West started when Lewis & Clark trekked Westward, soon followed by fur trappers, miners, settlers. .

"Wolves were brought back to ID, MT, WY for a reason and if some people don't like it, too bad, move to somewhere else."


And now,it is legal to hunt wolves,if you don't like it,move to someplace where wolves are not hunted.
Hunters have as much right to use the wilderness areas as those like you who feel that no human activity should occur in wilderness areas.
Fact is hunters provide the money for the state game departments to operate,and the elk herds were managed for hunter harvest of elk,not wolf harvest of elk.

Hillbillies from hell?
What do you think most people 's opinions of you radical eco-terrorists is? You people are a fringe group,you have no concept of reality,hunters,outfitters,guides,all pay more into,and have done more for wildlife conservation than any of you psychos.

You can't turn back time to the way things were before man arrived in the west,if you want wolves in Yellowstone,fine. The ranchers,outfitters,guides,and hunters have been here,and we are not going away,maybe all of you should try to work towards a solution,and not call names,and say all hunters are bad,or hunt from vehicles,or are ignorant.
More would be done if you stopped all the ridiculous lawsuits,and used the money for the good of the wolves.
And whoever said trappers set snares on bridges ect. is really ignorant of how traps/snares are set. no one sets traps on a bridge. You are exaggerating and repeating a story you heard on one of your eco-terrorist sites.

Tom, please, you outfitters and hunters care nothing for wildlife. I' won't say all, but a fair majority. Everyone with half a brain knows that outfitters only care about getting their clients an easy elk. You hate wolves simply because they make it much harder for you to get one of your clients an elk. It has nothing to do with control. You can make all of the assumptions you want, but deep down, it has to do with saving the lives of animals who should have the right to live, not be gunned down by some hunting coward for sport. Outfitters have no credibility what so ever when it comes to wildlife issues. All you nuts care about as I said is getting your client an elk. If you are so mad at wolves for putting a hurt on your business, find a real job.

He can't find a real job; it's been decades since he had any useful skills or viable qualifications. Don't take my word for it; go on down there and take a look for yourself at what those rednecks want to make America. Just be careful walking around; don't step on the rusty nails and sharp metal trash they leave around on the ground.

"to save the wolves"
"...,not gunned down by some hunting coward for sport" It sounds to me like you are a proud card carrying member of PETA. You are totally out of touch with reality. Anyone with "half a brain" can see this.

"Owl Creek"
They did respond to David Allen but their flawed science and arguments didn't go anywhere and David invited them to come debate him and so far no go. The only members of RMEF who have quit are the green types whose jaded conservation views were rejected by new leadership, it's directors and CEO. RMEF is all about propagating healthy elk herds and their habitat. Wolves make the RMEF's great work and efforts go for naught in areas where wolves are having their way. They need control and contrary to some scientific minds, predator control does work. Manage the wolves at a reasonable number and most hunters I know are willing to share a few elk with them but not to let them run rough shod over healthy elk populations.

You are not going to go back to the pre Columbian era because of the vast settlement of the West and free ranging predators advocated by the radicals won't do anything but wipe out the prey base, then the predators die off and the ugly cycle starts all over again, or tries to, until management by humans steps in and brings the balance back. This is proven in history and the population of the earth by humans developing as the supreme predator. The notion of balancing nature and the ecosystem is pretty much a fairy tale until man is taken out of the equation and my friend that isn't happening very soon, even with the Biological Diversity Center handing out millions of condoms recently. These radical greens will stop at nothing.

Tom, don't like peta and never ever supported them. Out of touch with reality? There are many people out there who don't want to see wolves killed for sport by cowards with guns. That is a fact. Look at the data Dave Allen put on his website. It SHOWS that elk herds are up. Reason why Allen came out and said what he said is because he knows that a lot of the hunters who hate wolves are members of his organization, but make no mistake, he is the one lying. His data on his website as I said shows elk herds are up. How do you explain that Tom? Balance to humans is less predators and more prey animals for hunters to gun down. You preach conservation Tom, but the truth is you want only deer and elk reserves with very few predators if any. Predators are comp and that is another reason why people like you dislike them. As I said, all you care about is getting an elk for one of your clients. You care nothing for wildlife.

If wolves were able to kill their prey base off at Tom, elk wouldn't be here today. Would you care to explain how elk are here today if you think wolves will kill off their prey base? Look at the data on the rmef website. It clearly shows elk herds are up. How do you explain that? Why would they put that data up?

"save the wolves"

Elk herds are up in much of the West due to good conservation and management using hunting as an important tool in this success. Elk herds are down very significantly in areas where wolves are running rampant and even here in the southwest where the human Habituated Mexican Gray Wolf government hybrid dog is also taking out significant portions of herds within their reach.

Where their are wolves elk numbers decline very fast with cow calf ratios dipping into the single digits and it takes 30% calf crop surviving to have a stable elk population.

The way I read your post was that all hunters with guns are cowards not just the wolf hunters. The wolf hunters will play a significant role in helping sustain our elk herds and with hunting and shooting at the wolves makes them even more wary and harder to get, so it actually is good not only for the wolf but good for the elk herds that are presently being decimated in the Lolo and Clearwater areas of Idaho not to mention the Yellowstone herd that have been culled too severely to allow hunt able numbers anywhere near what they used to be around Yellowstone Park.

Many elk hunting outfitters in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are out of business or going out because there are not enough elk left in some of their areas to hunt. (gloat over this real mike) Many elk hunters nation wide are avoiding these states and especially in the areas where the wolves have severely reduced elk numbers. Sunlight Basin near Cody, WY is another example. You better read David's report over again and admit to the real gist of the heated rhetoric between him and the radical enviros. What we are basically saying is that wolf numbers need to be controlled and that the so called social structuring of the wolves lives won't sustain any hunting as George W would like you to believe. His scientific evidence may sound credible but wolves are a hardy lot and hunting is a proven method for controlling their numbers to a sustainable level. Some on the right side of the spectrum even believe it will take trapping to manage them. Hunting them is a good start and those dammed old coward wolf hunters are giving the wolf program a tool to possibly make everyone happy.

It seems as your only concern is elk and wolves killing them. Are you faulting wolves for killing elk Tom? No one cares who brought elk back. You brought them back so they can be shot and harvested. Your only concern for elk is making sure there are elk around for you and your clients to shoot. It is all about making money for you and your client getting that easy elk. You care nothing for wildlife. I love it how you use the argument that hunters brought elk back, they brought them back to be shot by hunters. You think because hunters brought elk back, they should be entitled to them more so than anyone else or any other species that actually rely on elk to survive? The elk do not belong to people like you and hunters. The elk belong to everyone. Wolf hunting doesn't control wolves. Any expert will tell you you have to kill a very high % of the wolf population to really control them. You kill 200 wolves, there will be another 200 wolves to take those wolves places. Wolf hunting should be banned simply because it is unmoral. I wouldn't expect a person like you to understand this. Afertall, you are in the business of killing elk and you could careless of predators. And people like you claim they love and care about widllife. Your money that you claim pays for conservation in truth pays to make sure there are plenty of animals around you hunters can kill and don't try to tell me any different.

I would ask what meeting George Wuerthner has to do with the subject. You think he could "change me" with his presence. Typcial of people like you. Your demigod knows all. I agree with conservation, and most agencies of the govt. and private landowners practice it. But to say, "lets just get all those cows off the public land" is ridiculous. The problem with people like you is that you cannot see that PEOPLE rely on that land. To many cows? Then cut the number down a bit, if that is necessary, or switch pastures. The whole idea of a cowless west is barbiac, something in the order of what the nazis did to the jews. PEOPLE rely on that resource, just as minors or timberman rely on that resource. Wolves? We don't need them. We have so we will live with them, to a point. You people just don't get the fact that over the next ridge, PEOPLE live. How about those elk? Well, econimically, in Montana, those elk bring in about 400 million dollars. Thats economice. I could care less if you don't think dollars matter because THEY DO. Them matter to alot of folks. In particular, to alot of folks THAT LIVE HERE.

bigsky, it does not matter what you need or if you want wolves there or not. The wolves belong in all of those 3 states whether you hunters like it or not. Keeping those cows on public lands is what causes conflict between predators and ranchers.

and if there were no wolves, no problems....end of story. The wolves don't belong here anymore than they belong on the east coast, new york city, denver, or arizona. Get over it. The only reason they are doing so well now is that the prey base is there. As soon as that is gone, all they will do is cause conflicts with people. That includes domestic animal producers, horse owners, dog owners, whatever. Its easy to make assumptions when you don't have to deal with the problem personally.

Technically speaking, bigsky, it's the wolves who belong and you who don't.

bigsky, the real mike is indeed right. Wolves were there long before people and it is you who is the real tresspasser. I am only stating facts. Who are you to say wolves don't belong there? Typical ignorance from a hunter.

PEOPLE live here now. You move back to Europe...oh, I forgot, they use to have wolves there also........you people need a hobby....

By the real mike, 5-16-10

He can't find a real job; it's been decades since he had any useful skills or viable qualifications. Don't take my word for it; go on down there and take a look for yourself at what those rednecks want to make America. Just be careful walking around; don't step on the rusty nails and sharp metal trash they leave around on the ground.

You are obviously predjudiced against anyone who doesn't have the same views as you. That is real easy to tell by your posts,people like you have no concept of reality,the utopia you seem to think will happen if we just leave the wolves alone will not happen. When a wolf eats one of your pets,or a neighborhood child you will be the first to say we have to do something about the wolves.
When man settled the west,the wolves were eliminated.Live with it.The gray wolf was supposed to be re-introduced into Yellowstone,Yellowstone,not the entire west.There were supposed to be 30 pairs outside the park,or the states could kill the rest,not a thousand animals or whatever the latest number you morons come up with is.
The states introduced a LEGAL hunting season,live with it.
Ask the people like me who actually live in the states where the wolves are if they want more wolves,we don't.
When the first legal wolf was killed,you people went crazy,threatening the hunter.
I don't know WTF you are talking about "rusty nails and sharp metal" No one I know leaves trash on their property,unless it was left there by the 60's commune types. In that case,we clean it up. I have pets and children on my property,there is nothing they could be hurt on laying around.
It is us "Rednecks" who built all the homes you granola eating morons live in,and the roads you drive on,and everything else that is beneath your type to do for work.
That's okay,if the financial markets collapse,which is looking like a good bet,and the electrical grid goes down,the population of you worms first,granola eating morons will go down fast.
Us "rednecks",who know how to fish,hunt, grow and harvest vegetables,and build things will be just fine.
You people will have no clue what to do once you lose all your high tech toys.Half of you probably can't even cook dinner for yourselves,you only know how to order food from a menu.
Leave the wolf issue to the people who actually live here.

This news post started w/the wolf and has degrated into the typical left verses right "thing".

"Environmentalism" is responsible for slowing down--but not preventing-- the degradation, polluton and poisoning of our world. Unrestrained "industrial extremism" in pursuat of wealth--that I have materialy benefited from--(all Americans, left and right, are to a degree responsible for this holocaust) is the worse form of socialism in that we reap the profits leaving the cleanup costs to society or future generations. The previous 5 or 6 generations of Americans have consumed 20 to 30 generations of natural resources. It started with the dust bowl of the 1930's continuing with depletion of the ocean fisheries, unsustainable drafting of water from rivers, lakes & aquifers, introduction of exotic plants & animals that are degrading the productivity of the natural systems, plastic bags and other trash dumped in the oceans that is visible from outer space, an 8000 square mile dead zone in the the Gulf of Mexico that is a product of industrial chemicals dumped in the Mississippi River and the list is much longer and continues to grow including the newest 'gift"--the oil spill in the Gulf.

Many will deny that these enviromental issues exist-hell just drive along any highway and observe the trash from our throw-away culture-- believing that our culture can continue on this reckless unsustainable path of exhaustion and pollution. How will these problems be addressed if the converstion--I read all of the above comments-- is dominated by name calling, labels and angry sound bites? Is this converstion doomed to get worse as our population continues to expand while our resources shrink?
P.S. All of you angry readers should vent your energy by spending a day picking up trash on one of your local highways.

Monty
You have made the best post since the conversation devolved into hunter/anti-hunter,which was very early on.
I spend a lot of time in the backcountry,and the amount of trash is disgusting,I pick up Pepsi cans/plastic bottles,plastic water bottles,Ramen noodle packages,tinfoil,beer cans,ciggarette packages,candy bar wrappers,packaging from film,(I thought most people used digital cameras now?). I can't speak for everyone,but I always pack out more trash than I pack in,a lot more. All this trash is not deposited by hunters it is all groups who use the backcountry areas.
As for the wolf issue,it was supposed to be left up to the states,now the anti-hunters are going back on their word,and challenging the very thing they agreed to in the first place,that is wrong. leave the wolves in Yellowstone,control them outside the park.
The grazing leases are a way for the government to make money,and to help the ranchers, it is a way to share the land,cattle leases are not going to go away.People have been making their living ranching,and being outfitters for generations,hunting brings over 400 million dollars into the state of Montanas economy,hunting is not going to stop.

MH, states have shown they are not capable of managing predators like wolves the right way. Wolves just came off the endangered species list and Idaho fish and game allowed a hunting season on them. Usually, when a species comes off the endangered species list, they wait some time before allowing a hunting season, but as soon as the wolves came off, hunting season was already in full effect it seems. The only way to stop the unnecessary hunting of wolves is through the courts. Wolf hunting is wrong on all levels. Wolves should be a protected species, not hunted down by some coward with his gun. As for the argument that if hunting is not allowed, wolves will overpopulated, the argument is weak. Wolves self-regulate. Hunting is not needed to keep populations in check.

Are Hunters Stupid?

The Unintended Consequences of Wolf Hunting

By GEORGE WUERTHNER

In my younger days I worked for the BLM in Boise, Idaho. A new range conservationists, named Daryl, came to the district. On Friday after work, we invited Daryl to a party so he could meet some of the local folks. I was talking to a couple of women when Daryl ambled up to us with a beer in his hand and big smile on his face. I introduced him and he started talking to the ladies

I think on the whole he was making a good impression. Dressed in his cowboy boots and jeans, Daryl made a striking figure. After making some small talk for a while, Daryl made his move. He asked them if they wanted to go gopher shooting on Saturday. “Gopher shooting” they asked incredulously? “Yeah, he said, “gopher hunting—you know blowing away gophers.” They looked stunned and remained silent. So Daryl tried to recover and said, “The fun part is seeing the red mist rise in the air when you hit one. It’s an incredible rush,” he said with obvious enthusiasm.

Those women just looked at each other like they couldn’t believe what they were hearing. He might as well ask them if they wanted to go the park and molest children. The women fled. Daryl was left baffled and standing alone. He just couldn’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want to go blow away gophers, especially when he offered to bring a spare rifle so they could join in the fun.

Poor Daryl had grown up on a farm in North Dakota, and more recently had worked in Burns Oregon. In his world, shooting gophers was considered a legitimate recreational pastime. But what passes for fun in rural America seems like senseless killing to most urban dwellers.

Sometimes I think most hunters in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are as clueless as Daryl. They can’t seem to comprehend how killing wolves baffles, if not outright infuriates, a lot of people. Wolf killing gives fodder to those who want to stop all hunting. Sometimes when I see these rural rubes, with their often ample bellies hanging over their equally ample belt buckles, strutting around celebrating the initiation of a wolf hunting season and talking about how it’s an "adrenaline rush" to shoot one, I have to wonder if they are brain dead or just incredibly naïve and ignorant about the rest of mainstream society’s values? They apparently cannot imagine how much some forms of hunting, including the shooting of an icon like the wolf, turns off the rest of society to hunting.

Most people don’t hunt, so the perception of hunting and hunters is key to how society will tolerate and support hunting as a legitimate activity. Yet most hunters seem to take the knee jerk attitude that anyone who objects to any form of hunting or kind of hunting, no matter how barbaric, is either a member of PETA, or just doesn’t “understand” Nature. The truth is that many of those objecting to wolf hunting are neither ignorant of ecology nor members of PETA or any other animal rights organization. Americans are willing to accept some forms of hunting, typically if the animal is used for food and/or if there is a legitimate safety issue—say animals carry rabies. But they don’t support outright slaughter of animals for no reason other than someone thinks killing is fun or a challenge. I and many of my friends hunt—but we all eat the animals we kill, and we don’t kill animals unnecessarily or with malice against them.

Furthermore, many Americans, including myself, consider spotting a wolf in the wild as a cherished event. Despite the claims by some hunters that there are “too many” wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, the chance of seeing one of these animals in the wild is extremely rare. There are less than 2000 wolves spread over three of the largest western states. Imagine if there were only 2000 deer spread over all three states—would hunters think there were “too many?”

Plus, for many Americans, wolves are symbolic of a largely lost heritage of the wild, unfettered nature. And for some, such as myself, wolf restoration represents the best of American values—acknowledging the great ecological wrong we imposed upon the land when we extirpated wolves, and an attempt to heal the ecological wounds we created. So the idea that any state would implement a policy to restrict or reduce wolves is something to strongly oppose.

As the ecologist Aldo Leopold noted years ago, wolves also play an important biological role as a top down predator that has many ecological ramifications across the landscape. Unfortunately most hunters have not yet developed the ability to “think like a mountain” as Leopold admonished.

We do know that wolves select different animals in the herd from hunters. Wolves, while opportunistic, still tend to kill the young, old, and injured. They can keep herd animals free from disease and can sometimes have significant influence upon other animals and plants. For example, it’s theorized that hey alter habitat use by ungulates, for instance, moving elk out of riparian areas. Even when wolves severely reduce prey numbers, they are performing an important ecological function by providing plant communities respite from heavy browsing pressure.

Hunters by contrast, tend to kill the productive age healthy animals, and have less ecological influence upon prey species and habitat use than native predators.

Of course, some hunters rationalize killing wolves because they suggest the animals “need” to be managed. I hear that all the time, as if somehow the natural world had gone to hell in a hand-basket before Euro Americans arrived just in the nick of time to rescue Nature from imminent collapse. Of course, the “need” to manage wolves is both a self-created and self-justifying excuse to kill animals that most hunters wish would just go away or at least believe should be kept at much lower numbers.

All this talk about the so called “need” to manage wolves is disingenuous at best. Any good ecologist will tell you that wolves and other predators do not need to be “managed” since they are more or less self-regulating by prey availability and social interactions. The only reason one has to “manage” wolves is because state wildlife agencies want to sell more hunting licenses. (There may be rare instances where lethal action is necessary where an animal may have become habituated to people and poses a safety concern, but that is entirely different than “sport hunting”.)

I doubt most agencies care about predator social interactions. They treat wolves and other predators like cogs in a wheel—interchangeable parts. Shoot some wolves. Not to worry, more will be born. But the interactions between wolves, prey, and humans are not so simple. Animals have real social lives that influence many aspects of their behavior.

Indiscriminate hunting, by disrupting these social relationships, can exacerbate the conflicts between wolves and humans. Killing a large percentage of wolves in any area creates many of the so called “problems” that hunting is supposed to reduce. Indiscriminate hunting and reduction of wolves (as opposed to the surgical elimination of a particular animal or group) skews the local population towards younger animals which are less skilled hunters, thus more likely to attack easy prey like livestock.

Also with more young animals breeding, that produce more pups, you actually increase the total biomass requirements of packs so that even if they don’t prey on livestock, wolves are likely to need more prey—i.e. those elk, deer, and moose that hunters covet. Nothing will do more to create animosity and conflict towards predators than hunting. But you won’t hear this from any state wildlife agency since it’s not in their interest to worry about social interactions of animals.

Yet if you read hunting magazines and/or listen to hunters discussing the future of their favorite activity, you find a common theme is that predators are destroying game herds, and the “antis” are out to take away their guns. The “antis” are, of course, anyone else who doesn’t hunt. Most hunters spend more time complaining about the “antis” than doing anything meaningful to protect the habitat that is central to all hunting.

The real threat to hunting doesn’t come from PETA or any other animal rights group, but from the habitat loss resulting from oil drilling, logging, livestock grazing, ATVs, sprawl, and all the rest of the development and degradation of natural landscapes that continues unabated daily. Some hunters and some pro hunting organizations like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, among others recognize this, and certainly most agency biologists are well aware of this threat, but the average hunter seems less interested in protesting against oil wells, expanding ATV use, and/or sprawl than complaining about the antis.

If hunters want to help realize their worst fears—that is fuel opposition to hunting by society--they could find no better way to do this than continue blowing away wolves. But if Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho want to signal to the world that they have entered the 21^st Century and no longer hold archaic and outdated ideas about predators, they can begin to value wolves as essential for ecological diversity, as well as their role in the American imagination as symbols of what we are doing right to heal the ecological wounds we created. The way to do this is to stop the hunting of all predators starting with wolves.

Some amazing nonsense spewing from you wacko wolf lovers. I don't even know where to begin....so I won't. I will say this.

THERE WILL BE HUNDREDS OF WOLVES KILLED IN MONTANA, IDAHO AND WYOMING AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!

Throw other wacko's hard earned money at lawsuits etc. You will fight and you will lose. You will have to find another scam to get other people's money for. Good luck. You're gonna need it suckers.

Maybe you can spend more money on wolf reintroductions in the area so we can kill them too. You lost, deal with it.

Steve - did someone break your favorite toy today? Get in trouble with the teacher for calling someone a whacko or sucker? So much rage, so little time.

No,hunters are not stupid,but we hear that a lot from all the anti-hunters.
Hunting is a legal sport,it is not going to be stopped by those who do not hunt,and who only view the outdoors from the misguided anti-everything except sniff the air in the backcountry types.

Once again wolves were supposed to be re-introduced into YELLOWSTONE not the entire west. The wolf was exterminated in the west because it posed a danger to man,and the activities of man. As long as there are people,there is no reason to re-introduce the wolf to the entire west. The people who use the land the most DO NOT WANT WOLVES!
The courts decided that WOLF HUNTING IS LEGAL.... GET OVER IT!!!
The people pushing for more wolves,no hunting are ,for the most part,not even residents of the areas in question.
Lets let packs of wolves go in all of your neighborhoods,see what your reaction is.They will eat all the deer,and all the other wildlife in the urban areas you live in,then start eating your pets and children.
If you want to keep wolves in Yellowstone,keep them there,those of us who live in Montana,in or near the backcountry areas,DO NOT WANT WOLVES!!!!!

Actually, Steve, we are are winning and have won most of the battles with you wolf haters. You won a few down the road, but in the end, we will prevail because wolves are back and aren't going anywhere. I feel Molloy will relist the wolves to protect them from cowards with guns such as yourself.

By save the wolves

Montana is increasing the wolf quota,so more wolves can be legally harvested. What you fail to understand is that the quotas,and the number actually killed are far apart.
Hunting brings over 400 MILLION dollars to the Montana economy,hunting is not going to stop.
The people supporting the save the wolves ,save all the animals ect. do not even live in the areas where WOLVES ARE A PROBLEM!!!
Stay in the city where you belong,and live the wilderness areas alone,if you want to see a wolf,go to Yellowstone,go to a zoo,but wolves ARE NOT WANTED IN NW MONTANA!!!! Wolves and man cannot co-exist,history tells us that,learn from it! The only way you can have large wolf populations in the wild is to have NO PEOPLE!!
That is not going to happen,so the state game agencies in MT,ID,and WY,will continue to allow wolf hunting,the wolf IS NOT AN ENDANGERED SPECIES!! There are THOUSANDS in CANADA if you like wolves so much...move to Canada,you can see all the wolves you want to there.

Where is your evidence that the people who support the wolves don't live in the areas where wolves are a problem? Not every Idahoian sees wolves as problems. Only welfare ranchers and hunters who are moaning that the elk are being killed off at alarming rates by wolves, a claim you can't prove btw are seeing wolves as problems. You can't rely in assumptions you can't prove. It does not matter if wolves are endangered lor not. They havr a right to live without being chased down by some coward hunter with a gun only out to kill the animal for sport, a claim that you hunters constantly make and fault for the wolf when you do the same exact thing. They are losing their lives because of cowards like you who piss and moan about having wolves back.

Evidence? What evidence. How about the welfare of other animals? You claim this its the "hunters" who want all the game. Not true. Yes, these people get out and hunt, but many seldom actually harvest an elk. What is the point of getting out when there are no elk left? Yes, it is coming to that in many (almost all) areas where wolves have resided for more than 5 years. You keep calling people "cowards" when you don't even know who you are talking to. Sounds like a grade school kid who can right. Secondary, the loooonnnnnggggg post you had above is about as ridiculous as any I have ever seen. I can tell you, from stories that my dad and grampa told me, that there we no deer (in most parts) and very few elk in the 20s and 30s in Montana. The streams were ravaged for gold, and everybody dumped into the rivers. The trees were cut with no regard to erosion. Yet today, most of those scars are healed, and most mining, timber, and ranching practices are done with the idea of trying to disturb the least. You give the impression that things are bad, you have no idea what they were like before. So your rants and raves mean nothing. We will continue to harvest timber, mine, and make jobs for our people. Your wolves will be here, but they will be controlled, regardless, and eventually it will be done my Montanans, not govt. agents. Heck, its alot cheaper that way. Last poll I saw was over 90% of Montanans want the wolves controlled. We live here and have to put up with these vermin, you don't. Mountain hunter, agree with you 100%. Catch a fish and fry it for me up there in them mountains......

Predator control is and has been a very effective tool in managing wildlife herds as has hunting. It has a proven track record for the last hundred years of wildlife management by our Game Depts.

George continues to eloquently spew his half baked theories on wolf biology. He does admit they are opportunistic killers but the old saw that they mainly kill just the weak, old and sick is a very small part of their killing.

Most hunters I know are in tune to the out of doors and enjoy all wildlife and healthy populations so that the age old hunting instinct can still be refueled from time to time. But when unchecked predators threaten much of the healthy balance of wildlife and wolves are absolutely merciless in taking down wildlife herds of especially elk but also deer. Most hunters love to be in the woods as much as they do hunt.

For "real mike" and 'save the wolves" and even George to be so totally biased against hunters is not surprising but hard for the common man to comprehend. Sure there are bad apples in every barrel but you guys castigate all hunters as cowards and reapers and pillagers of the earth. Not so. We the hunters did not bring back wildlife herds just for hunting but for the pleasure to witness God's creatures on a daily basis in season or out of season. Wolves are a beautiful animal but can be controlled and managed so both worlds will have the full benefit of a healthy wildlife ecosystem.

"Mountain hunter" is right on in his analysis of having unlimited wolves, and that is to take people out of the equation which means hunters, birdwatchers, hikers, bunny huggers, tree huggers, and radical greenies. But with proper management and using hunting as a tool to help balance the wildlife, it can be met with humans still present on the landscape in the West.

Where the wolf lovers went wrong was to let the numbers of wolves get way out of hand and too much damage to many wildlife populations as well as livestock losses, before hunting management began. All of the hype to put the wolves back on the land and promises made to allow much lower levels than was finally set at has caused most of the grief we are seeing now. No, they aren't happy with just part of the pie, they want the whole thing, hunters, ranchers, pet owners and elk, moose and deer advocates be damned.

The welfare of other animals? Kinda funny that coming from you. If you hunters cared so much about elk, why do you kill them? You hunters kill 16,000 elk each hunting season yet you have the audacity to claim you care about elk and you blame wolves for doing the same exact thing you do. The wolves are doing the same thing you are, but the only thing with them is that they actually rely on elk year round to survive which I doubt you do bigsky. Common sense tells us elk were put on the planet to feed the wolves and other predators. That is the predators food source. Bigskiy, by referring to wolves as vermin shows you have no regard for wildlife that preys on the same animals you wanna kill. That is all you care about like the typical ignorant hunter who only cares about getting his elk. Wolves are not vermin. They are there to stay and a hunting season won't change that. kill 200 wolves, there will be another 200 to take those wolves place. Tom, george is a hunter himself. You are biased against wolf lovers, so don't act like it's only one way. Hunters are not balancing wildlife Tom. That is myth. Hunters want loew predator #s and high prey #s. Clearly has nothing to do with balance. You hunters preach balace, but the truth is it is all about having many prey animals for you hunters to shoot. Tom, people like you and bigsky are not true conservationists. If you nuts had your way, there would be no predators, just prey animals for you hunters to shoot.

Of course, some hunters rationalize killing wolves because they suggest the animals “need” to be managed. I hear that all the time, as if somehow the natural world had gone to hell in a hand-basket before Euro Americans arrived just in the nick of time to rescue Nature from imminent collapse. Of course, the “need” to manage wolves is both a self-created and self-justifying excuse to kill animals that most hunters wish would just go away or at least believe should be kept at much lower numbers.

All this talk about the so called “need” to manage wolves is disingenuous at best. Any good ecologist will tell you that wolves and other predators do not need to be “managed” since they are more or less self-regulating by prey availability and social interactions. The only reason one has to “manage” wolves is because state wildlife agencies want to sell more hunting licenses.

George is right on point with this!

So true Tom. The wolf lovers got greedy and they will feel the pain come fall. Lots of wolves hitting the dirt because the enviros wanted too much. How does that make you enviros feel? Seems counterproductive doesn't it? Wildlife flourishes in the west because of hunting, not wolves. Sorry you can't deal with it. It will continue to flourish because of hunting including the wolf. Don't worry, the wolf isn't going anywhere. I'll post pics when it gets back from the taxidermist. Who do I have to thank? Another animal to pursue for the love of the outdoors. Long live the wolf.

Maybe you all can learn from your mistake and chose another scam that will have better profits. If the judge wants to keep his job then he'll do the right thing. I believe he is finally seeing the light. We will enjoy this coming fall. If it weren't for taxidermy bills then life would be even better.

Steve, true, if he wants to keep his job and do the right thing, he will relist wolves to protect them from cowards with guns just like you. Wildlife was not put on earth to cater to hunters or cowards with guns like yourself.

There is not one good reason to put the wolf on the endangered species list and the judge and everyone else knows it. You lost the fight. Call us all cowards, we really don't give a damn. How does that sound? If you want to donate, then I've got a taxidermy fund started. Let me know how much you can send. Cash only and large bills please.

Signed,
Coward

Lost the fight fellas. It will be over June 15th. Then we can get to do some management of this species that is destroying so much of what makes Montana a great place to live. Wolves, bears, coyotes, elk, deer, moose all have a place to live in Montana. Lets keep it that way.

steve, how did we lose the war? wolves are back. How does it feel be a coward that kills wolves for sport with his gun? Wait until the courts decide. Time and time again we have won in court to protect the wolves. You may have won one or two battles, but wolves are back and that is that. You will still remain a coward though.

bigsky, Unfortunately, most hunters are single minded about what is important and ecological integrity takes a backseat to “getting their elk.”-George Wuerthner bs, All your comments do is show time and time again all you care about is elk and hunting elk. Don't be mad if wolves are relisted again. You and that coward Steve will not be happy campers.

Steve, you and your anti wolf group are sadly in the minority, but feel free to think otherwise. There are many reasons why wolves should be protected. I think you are deeply frustrated because you are a terrible hunter who has a hard time finding an elk to kill, so rather than fess that that you are a failure of a hunter, you blame wolves for why you are an unsuccessful hunter.

My wife won't let me bring anymore dead animals in the house and I'm asking for taxidermy donations from you. I'll let you do the math. I pushed for the wolf since 95 under the impression that we would get to manage them. Well it's been a long wait but the end is near. I manage bears, coyotes, lions the same way I will manage the wolf. I love diversity but don't like getting told what I can't do. Those days are now behind us. Let's celebrate by you buying me a beer. Long live the wolf. I'll bet you another beer that the wolf won't be relisted. In fact, you have to buy a wolf tag when I win and I get to shoot that one too.


Wildlife flourishes because of hunting.
Live it, learn it, love it.

Your comments are right on George. It's refreshing to read words of truth. I think with the state increasing the number of wolves to be killed, this will have the opposite effect of what the "hunters" are hoping for. Judge Molloy is a smart man. He will no doubt see through the attempts of kill, kill, kill!

"Sometimes when I see these rural rubes, with their often ample bellies hanging over their equally ample belt buckles, strutting around celebrating the initiation of a wolf hunting season and talking about how it’s an "adrenaline rush" to shoot one, I have to wonder if they are brain dead or just incredibly naïve and ignorant about the rest of mainstream society’s values? "

The rest of mainstream society???
No,just your tiny little part,the part who has never lived anywhere but a city or urban area,or maybe has a 2nd home in the "country" where you have no clue how those of us who live here year round live. You want to impose YOUR narrow minded views on everyone else."Rural rubes" gives you away.
Not true that "very few" people hunt.
Not true that animals have "rights". You watched Bambi too many times. Animals can't talk,do not act like humans.
Not true that wolves are an endangered species. Count Alaska and Canada,more than enough wolves,in areas where they do not come in constant contact with man,and therefore are not a problem.
Not true that wolves do not need to be managed,they were supposed to be introduced into YELLOWSTONE,and ONLY YELLOWSTONE,not the entire west. Now there are too many,and they are causing problems for ranchers,farmers,homeowners,elk and deer herds,what are they going to eat after they kill ALL THE ELK,ALL THE DEER??? Are you goibng to go to court to import more elk and deer?
ELK and deer herds are managed for max. hunter harvest,because we pay for the state game agencies! The only money your kind spend is on lawyers.You spend NOTHING on actual programs beneficial to wildlife.Hunters are supposed to manage the elk and deer herds not wolves.
Not true that wolves will be re-listed,in fact quotas will increase this year,and the next,and the next,and the next. People are getting sick of your type clogging up the courts with unneeded lawsuits,that includes those of us like all of the "Locals",the hunters,landowners,outfitters,guides,ranchers,restaurant owners,motel owners,and all the rest of us who make our living in the "backcountry" are sick of outsiders trying to tell us what to do,Montana sucks,now go home and tell all of your friends.
Remember this...us "Rednecks" "Rural Rubes" "Hillbillies" and whatever else you want to call us are the ones who built your homes,your roads,the schools your children go to,fix your cars,your furnaces,your air conditioners,trim your trees,sell you your firewood,raise and process the beef,lamb,chicken and turkey you eat.Most of us spend more time outdoors just doing our jobs than most of you spend outdoors in an entire year.
If you put all of us out of buisiness,maybe you can hire the excess illegal immigrants from Az.

Ahh, mountain hunter, you speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. What you are dealing with here is the famous "bambi complex", only its been changed to wolves. Remember when bambi came out? I was a kid, and poor ol bambis mom (been awhile, or was it his dad?) got shot and put into the cookpot. These people think that was real! Ol Bambi talking to his mom, squirrels chirping in, racoons with their bit. Now, since we have had animated wolf stories, wolf watchers in YNP, and all the hype, we have it again. Wolves talking in the brush, wolves messing around, wolves having human social conversations, all that. No amount of truth, hard data, or common sense will dictate to these people that this animal needs to be controlled. Canadians do it, Alaskans do it, Russians do it, and they still have wolves. I love the new twist on the issue. "If you shoot some, the others are just going to breed faster". Ha Ha laughable at best. The fact remains that if they prey base is gone or severely depressed, fewer wolves will be around, as we are witnessing in YNP now. I wanna see a lawsuit concerning the moose going into malloys courtroom. How is he going to react to that? Hmm, no moose, must be the darn hunters....nope, hunting is not allowed for moose anymore....not enough around....wolves? What?...the majestic wolf cannot kill all the moose....I have been told many times that wolves only kill the weak....must be a plague in the moose that is weakening them....yep....we will capture all the moose left and put them in zoos, administer antibiotics, breed them, and release them....thats the plan... Funny thing is, I could just about see them trying to do this. Utter insanity at best! Just like the posts we see here. I guess you just have to realize that "stupid" cannot be cured.

MT Hunter, not anymore. The wolves are the elks natural predator. That is why they were brought back. Hunters will never replace wolves as the elks natural predator. People are getting sick? You mean hunters and ranchers who do not like wolves? Do you speak for the whole public. You would be surprised to find out there is a very good # of people who think these wolf hunts are wrong. I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you right now I care much more about widllife than you ever will. Wanna you do some research as to how much money wildlife viewing brings in.

You care little about wildlife. If you did, you would want to control these wolves. Ever watch a wolf eat the fetus out of a cow elk while it is alive? Point aside, PEOPLE now live here. Almost all people who are directly affected by these wolves are AGAINST allowing them to expand. 400,000 dollars is brought into Montana by elk hunting alone. YNP cannot even prove that a single wolf has did anything for their revenues. They will claim it (and have) but if you research the parks records, they are not bringing in any extra revenue because of the wolves. I researched the park records. Hunters have replaced the wolves as their major predator until the wolves arrived. Now people are being hurt by the wolves expansion. Fact is, it is about PEOPLE. A few wolves, fine. As many as we have now? Got to remove a bunch before they destory all the other wildlife.

Save it save the wolves. Still don't understand that you lost? Please show us that the goal was to reintroduce an unlimited number of wolves. You can't because that never was the goal. The wolf reintroduction is a success story. Now it's time to move forward with proper management. The northern elk herd was grossly overpopulated and that is no longer the case. We need to balance wolf numbers now to stabalize the elk, moose and control livestock losses. Sometimes we have to play God but that's the way it is. If it steps out of the park in the fall then there is a chance it will survive if it learns to fear man. That is the best way to let the wolf be a wolf as George would say. Man rules, times change. Now go fight another fight but try to win this time.

"Wanna you do some research as to how much money wildlife viewing brings in."

Not nearly as much as hunting. You do not pay for licenses,ect. or bring in anywhere near the MILLIONS to the economy that hunting does. Just because I choose to hunt does not mean you care about wildlife more than I do,that is your opinion,and like as*holes everyone has one.
You lost,get over it!! Wolf hunting is LEGAL!!!

Steve, you do not get it and people like you do make me laugh thinking you are winning when infact you are losing. Who are the ones that are having the anti wolf rallies or crying and complaining wolves are eating all of the elk when they aren't. Wolves are back and will continue to grow like they should in large #s and hunting seasons will not stop that. Idaho fish and game know that these hunting seasons will not do anything to stop the wolf populations, but they just have them to shut morons like you who complain left and right up. We are the actual ones that have won this battle and will continue to win. Mountain hunter, http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/wildlife_watching_surpasses_hu.html

That is just the state or Oregon. There are more as well. Think about if, you can shoot an animal with a camera over and over again and that animal will still be there. You shoot an animal with a gun and its dead for good. Not that you care.


Every five years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts its National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The national overview of the 2006 survey results was released in May, and it was followed up last week by the State Overview...which is what I'm posting on here. Note that the survey and thus all of the following data only applies to people ages 16 and up. And bear in mind that some people don't hunt or fish every year. Thus, the number of people who would claim to be hunters and fishermen would be higher than the totals in an individual year.

- Americans spent $120 billion last year on hunting, fishing, and watching wildlife. Of that, $75 billion was spent on the first two, while $45 billion was spent on wildlife-watching activities--"closely observing, photographing, and/or feeding wildlife."

- About 34 million Americans hunt and/or fish, while 71 million watch wildlife, including what they see around their homes (like at bird feeders). From 2001 to 2006, the number of Americans who fished dropped 12 percent, with the Pacific States (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) leading the way with a 26 percent decrease. The number of hunters in the U.S. also dropped, but only by 4 percent. However, the number of Americans who viewed wildlife around their homes rose 8 percent, and the number who traveled to view wildlife rose 5 percent.

- Hunting and fishing were less popular amongst the residents of the Pacific States than in any other region of the U.S. Just 2 percent of us hunted and 8 percent fished, well below the national averages 5 and 13 percent, respectively. No, the South didn't top either category. That honor went to the awkwardly-titled "West North Central" states: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. There, 12 percent hunted and 21 percent fished in 2006.

WILDLIFE WATCHING VS. HUNTING

The number of people who enjoy observing and learning about wildlife is growing steadily and has already surpassed the number of hunters and revenues generated by them.
In the most recent survey, the “2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,” resident hunters in New Jersey spent $89,095,000. Wildlife watching participants which numbered 1,516,000 strong, spent $457,673,000. Clearly, the wildlife watchers outspent hunters 5 to 1, generating far more revenues for New Jersey businesses.

I bet you in most other states wildlife viewing generates more money than hunting as well. Also, wildlife watchers outnumber hunters as well.

Mountain hunter and Steve, please guys, don't cry when the wolves get relisted. You know there is a good chance it will happen. What are you going to say then, you guys are winning? Only in your delusional minds. haha

Figures lie and liars figure. You have way over rated wildlife watching. I would bet that the economies of most of the major elk hunting areas, that wildlife viewing wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. The largest wolf trip operator into the Yellowstone area told us his revenues for his wolf tours will never even come close to the elk hunting revenues he used to make. What does bird watching have to do with wolves and elk other than the vultures and ravens that eat their dead carcasses?

Besides what are the wildlife watchers going to watch when it becomes almost impossible to see a elk or moose, because of wolf predation.

Hunting is a proven management technique to manage healthy wildlife herds and predators so then and only then will the true big game wildlife viewers have good opportunity to do their thing.

"save the wolves" you and George and your kind don't have a leg to stand on except for the unsuspecting and unknowing who are believing all of your absurd fairy tales and lies about wolf biology. Every day we read your propaganda somewhere in the news and that is one of the major reasons their is a majority who think they like wolves.

Like they said above the wolf is the most inhumane killer of all predators. They eat their prey alive. It is not a pretty scene when the eat the back end out of first calf heifer to get the fetus, all the while the heifer is alive. The same with elk. many are literally just run to death and a big share of their prey are just hamstrung and left to suffer. Does a mountain lion do this? No they make a clean kill immediately then they do their business.
You Bambi huggers like to glorify the almighty wolf and never talk about the negatives. They sport kill and leave calf elk carcasses strewn about like rag dolls. They get into sheep and kill 30, 40 you name it, and they never eat them. You wolfers just say oh well it is just surplus killing and then they come back later to eat them all. Naught! On the other end of the scale they kill a baby calf a lot of times and you don't find anything but a grease spot. Not a pretty scene here in wolf country. Maybe while the elk herds and livestock are still plentiful we could set up viewing areas to watch all of the above carnage. It would even equal the Roman Empire and the Gladiators in the arenas to satisfy the watchers.

Your baloney that you and your kind are the only ones who really care about wildlife is a stretch at best. I'm sure you feel so, but you've never walked in my shoes or Big Sky's or Mountain Hunter's. Until you do it would darned sure be nice if you would zip you lips on this point. I guess that is your only defense besides the propaganda you so readily try to bring people into your little fairy tale world. Vegan Vegetarians would be proud of you. "save the wolves", man has developed as a meat eater over the millennium and hunting is a deeply ingrained into our very souls. I don't know what happened to you but somewhere your genes must have took a detour.

So if hunting the wolf is a loss then I will gladly take it. WHEW!! I thought a loss would be to let you idiots mismanage our wildlife. You say that hunting season won't do anything to the wolf population and they will continue to grow. Sooooo, what in the hell are you complaining about? It sounds like you got what you want and we get to hunt more wolves. Seems to me that everyone wins if that's the case. You sound desperate in all your posts and your voice is beginning to crack. I really hope you are enjoying this as much as I am. BECAUSE I'M LOVIN EVERY MINUTE OF IT!!!

Tom, elk herds are going great in Idaho and the rest of the states that have wolves. Yes, in some areas, elk herds may be down, but that is because of NUMEROUS reasons. Elk herds are going good in ID, MY, AND WY. People like you cherry pick information that supports your anti-wolf agenda. Instead of concentrating on elk herds as a whole, you worry about certain areas. Wolves and elk have lived together for thousands upon thousands of years and elk are still here today. If wolves were truly capable of wiping out elk, they would have done so a long long time ago. Tom, you are really faulting a wolf for how it kills? Do you know how stupid that sounds? Wolves don't eat animals with a knife. They use their teeth, you should expect that is how an animal is going to die. Your wolf ting colors shine right thru Tom. You are not fooling anyone.

You must be living on another Planet "save the wolves". Why do you think wolves were wiped out in the lower forty eight and marvelously how our wildlife herds began to flourish? You and your side would like people to believe elk are doing so wonderful now that you have some wolves. You are the ones cherry picking the data! Get real here and quit trying to propagandize your vision of what things may or may have not been in the distant past. History proves you wrong on so many counts and this is 2010 not 1810. The mass of humanity and development by them and the settling of the West have changed the formula. Get over it and accept that humans are the supreme predator and are now managing wildlife not the wolves. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have taken some big hits in many areas of these states and it is not a minor blip. Never the less wolves are cruel, inhumane and indiscriminate killers any way you cut it. They make us old coward redneck hunters look pretty mild in comparison.

Don't chop yourself up Tom. You are a much better conservationist than this "save the wolfies" ever will be. Without realizing it, you have through permits, drawings, buying ammo, licenses and such have supported jobs for other montanans and did more for wildlife than this fella anyday. The lies he spews can be found on the internet and in the papers. We all know whats happening to the moose and elk. Our fellas in Fish and Game know whats going on but they want to be "politically correct" so they shut up. I know a couple of fellas that work there and they tell me mums the word. They are waiting for the delisting. The bigger question for us is how many wolves are we going to remove and from what areas? I only hope we have not waited to long. These defenders of wildlife people are making big bucks off of this issue and they want to prolong it as long as possible. The moose in yellowstone are not down to about 115 from 1200 ten years ago because of "lack of willows" or "global warming" or "one bad winter". They are down in numbers because of wolves, and they just might go down to no moose in YNP at all due to wolf predation. If you take a look at the regs for moose hunting in other areas of the state where wolves have become established, you will see that there are very few tags given out. In a few more years, there will be no tags. Watch and see. Nice thing is that you can regulate human hunting. You cannot regulate wolf kills. The fact remains that where ever wolves have resided for at least five years, elk numbers have declined significantly, and if this trend continues, may fall to the point of no return.

Tom, elk herds are going great as a whole. Are you going to deny this? Idaho fish and game have said that their elk herds are doing good overall in the whole state. I am sorry if that bothers you. You and your kind would love for others to believe wolves are killing all of the elk, but that is just a flat out lie and has no truth to it what so ever. Wolves were brought back to control the elk herds. A coward with a gun will never replace a natural predator like a wolf. It is common sense you hunters take the biggest elks you can find and you know it. All animals are inhumane the way they kill. Get a grip on reality you clueless fool Tom. Faulting animals for the way they kill is ridiculous.

By save the wolves

"Wolves were brought back to control the elk herds"????

What are you smoking? Maybe that is true IN YELLOWSTONE ,which is THE ONLY PLACE wolves were supposed to be re-introduced.
30 PAIRS OUTSIDE THE PARK 30 PAIRS 30 PAIRS!!!
THAT IS WHAT THE AGREEMENT WAS 30 PAIRS OUTSIDE THE PARK!!! NOT UNLIMITED WOLF POPULATIONS IN THE WEST!!!

The wildlife watching numbers you people posted are seriously flawed,they include money spent on bird feeders,bird food,and morons feeding deer and bears.
Remember all of you wanted the bears in Aspen? What happened? REALITY,and you went to the STATE GAME DEPT FOR HELP!

The wolf was exterminated in the west for a reason,man,and the activities of man,and wolves DO NOT MIX!
WOLVES ARE NOT AN ENDANGERED SPECIES!!!!!
So far I have found exactly NO SUPPORT for your views in NW MONTANA,at least not from anyone who ACTUALLY LIVES HERE YEAR ROUND!
Montana sucks,now go home,stay home,and tell all of your friends that it is nothing but rednecks,hillbillies and cowards with guns here.Tell them it is dangerous too many rednecks. Tell them whatever you want,just stay home,stay out of Montana,and keep all of your tofu and granola eating friends out of Montana too,we don't want wolves,we don't want all of you who the wildlife is like Bambi,and all animals talk to each other,and all get along if people would just leave them alone,go back to your condos and stay there.

First of all please remember that wolves were eliminated from the east coast west as civilization moved west. Even the early settlers in George's baliwick in Vermont or whereever he is eliminated wolves as not being compatible with wolves. There is where he should be concentrationg his efforts.
The wolves only impact the elk where both live, I think Vermont is safe at present.
I just returned from a short trip to the Park. I counted 8 wolves in one area of the Madison, 4 in another, and 5 on the hill beneath the campground. At one time there were hundreds, they are gone, now only 17.
The wolves are now being forced to kill buffalo to eat. The Madison Pack killed an adult buffalo bull yesterday morning, by early after noon the 6 members had eaten virtually the whole thing except hide, head (they did eat the tongue out), and bone! One wolf was slimping and thought to have a broken leg from the encounter.
Unfortunately no one evern made a pretence of trying to establish wolves at the pre white man numbers, they brought in all they could stuff into the aprk. Then the money started rolling in for "research" grants to find out what in the world is happening to the elk.

Historically, if you look at the early encounters with wildlife in the west, elk and other ungulates were not common in the mountains. Lewis and Clark about starved when the hit the mountains. No buffalo herds, no elk, few deer, etc. They were happy to finally make it to the salmon rivers where they could trade for salmon for meat (and they got tired of it pretty quick!) They mentioned several times about being happy to return to the plains to get fresh meat. What that tells me is at that time (and time before) there was little game in them there mountains, probably mostly due to the arid nature of the area and severe winters. When modern agricultural finally hit the area, wildlife flouished (as it does now). We think of our elk as being really wild, but how wild are they? Where do they wind up when the snows get deep? Out where people live, on alfalfala fields, cropped fields with waste grain, etc. No doubt here in eastern montana we would have few/if any pheasants if it were not for modern farming and the waste grain left that they can peck up in the winters. Same with elk and deer. So, in a way these nutty people are right. We have allowed more animals to live because of modern ag. No modern ag, you will probably see less game in many areas. Just like most montanans, we love to see our wildlife in numbers that allow for viewing and also hunting. This in turn provides moneys for management of the species and also the "sidekick" of management of nongame species also. That is a point these wolf huggers don't get. It provides for all wildlife, and as much as I hate to see it, the management and study of the wolves also. Lets see the defenders of wildlife pony up 5 million and give it to the fish and game. Won't happen. They need that money for their salaries and lawsuits. Instead of trying to find a solution, they want to prolong the conflict to provide the maximum return. Its not about the animals to these people, its about the money. Where does the money the fish and game is utilizing to manage species, pay law enforcement, and do studies come from? Most is from licenses to fish and hunt. As we continue to find out, wolves and people do not coexist well together. If wolves and people live in the same area, it is a matter of WHEN not IF conflicts are going to arise. Todd, you hit it on the head. Wanna save the moose in yellowstone? Eliminate about 70% of the wolves and keep it that way. Otherwise, there will be no moose in yellowstone in another 5-10 years.

mh, do you know anything? yes, wolves were brought back to control the elk herds. that is just one of the many reasons why wolves were brought back and where are your getting your info that yellowstone was the only place wolves were supposed to get reintroduced? whether you like it or not, wolves were going to be in those states whether people helped speed the process up or not. Wolves were already on their way down to ID, MT, WY, ETC from Canada. Those #s were seriosly flawed? Here is the truth mt. hunter, people can shoot animals over and over and over again with their camera and the animal will still be there. You kill an animal and it's dead forever. mt, you are only going to count the opinions of those that agree with you. If you did a survey for all of the people in MT, you will find quite a few that support the protecting of wolves and not wanting a hunting season on them. You are just cherry picking. It is also a misconception that wolf lovers live in the city. No doubt about it. Montana has some who care for wolves and don't want to see them hunted. Do not act like all of Montana is against the wolves and want them exterminated like people like you because that is not true.

Read this mt. hunter, one might get the impression that the only reason hunters and anglers helped to recover elk and deer populations was to enable them to claim all future elk and deer as their private property to shoot and consume.

Dear BigskyHal

BigskyHal repeats one of the many falacies about the West--i.e. that because Lewis and Clark encounter few animals while crossing the Lolo Trail in the Bitterroot Mountains, there was no game in the mountains.

First relying on one observation is dangerous. Let me give you another example. When Clark traveled back from Oregon, he went from Missoula through the Bitterroot Valley over through the Big Hole down to Three Forks, across the Gallatin Valley, over Bozeman Pass and down the Yellowstone River to North Dakota.

In that entire journey they did not see a single bison until they reached well beyond Billings. Am I to suggest there was no bison west of Billings in Montana because they did not encounter any?

The point being that wildlife was mobile and there may have been other reasons for the absence of wildlife.

For instance, when Lewis and Clark traveled over the Lolo Trail they hit it just after a two foot snowfall. Could it be that two feet of fresh snow may have driven elk to lower elevations? Also the Lolo Trail followed narrow ridgelines through heavy timber, and seeing any wildlife along that route may have been difficult, especially when you consider they were leading horses that were having trouble on the trail, cursing, shouting, and what have you with more than 30 members traveling together. With deep snow, limited sight, and lots of noise, it's easy to imagine that game might be scarce.

Furthermore, there are plenty of other journal entries I could relate that talk about abundance of elk and other wildlife in the mountains. For instance, Osborne Russell who traveled throughout the Rockies during the 1830s recorded many instances of game "in the mountains" including quite a few entries about elk and sheep in the higher mountains of Yellowstone NP.

It was not nearly as cut and dired supporting wolves as some would have you think as this article from teh book "The Yellowstone Wolves" by Schullery would have you think.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7te9jmFJcrcC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=alistair+bath+++wolf+reintroduction+++wyoming&source=bl&ots=vsZzFlQpmI&sig=azL4oXZnWwylYsSSBRrk3lrC700&hl=en&ei=nlT0S_iQAoH6lwfTrtGtDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=alistairbath+wolfreintroduction+wyoming&f=false

One thing I have never understood is wolves are absolutely necessary for life on earth to continue, why are they only necessary in the Rocky Mountains and where they can damage game and livestock. Is it just coincidence that the impact is negative on the two groups that enviros love to hate?

Dear Geo, I will definitely look that up. Most of the literature I have points to less game than today. I would point to the fact also that people seemed to rely more on salmon west of the divide and that the tribes that lived in the flathead region and south of the flathead spent alot of time going to the buffalo range east of the mountains to hunt. I am sure there was game there, but how much compared to today? With modern farming, the introduction of alfalfa, grain and other grasses, we have created an oasis of food for game animals.

Nice post, Todd. I read the data. Interesting stuff, thanks for sending. I did however note that I beleive that was published in the early 90s?. Wonder what the views are in 2010?

Bigsky, I suspect the main difference is just that opinions are set in stone. Enviros have done everything to play down the losses to ranch families, and when you have biologists with the stature of Doug Smith out there telling audiences that the northern elk herd is now down to 10,000 animals, when it has been way lower for about 6 years, what are they going to believe? How many will actually go back and look at the numbers?

Remember that what was reported in journals, military records, etc. is very tricky to interpret.

I have done a lot of research on early wildlife distribution and abundance. First there is observer bias. In other words, what someone thought was important to record varies.

For instance, if you see something all the time, you may not comment on it. I keep a journal myself, but I almost never mention a mule deer or coyote sighting because mule deer and coyotes are fairly common and there's nothing unusual about seeing one. Yet if someone were to read my journal a hundred years from now, they might conclude there was was almost no mule deer or coyotes in Montana.

On the other the hand, I almost always note when I see a bighorn sheep or mountain goat, and especially a wolverine or something like that because it's not as common.

How you account for what was seen also varies. For example, Charles Kay, a critic of wildlife management in Yellowstone, only counts animals actually killed as a "record" sighting. So some observers mention seeing herds of elk, seeing tracks, and other signs, but Kay did not count those as valid because he could document exact numbers from such accounts. On the other hand, by not counting them, you could easily create the illusion that there were few animals.

Again using Lewis and Clark's journals. When Clark was traveling back to North Dakota across Montana he did mention seeing bison trails in the Gallatin Valley and a major bison trail coming down the Shields Valley. However, as I previously mentioned, they did not actually see any bison until they were beyond present day Billings. Using Charles Kay's interpretation screen, there were no bison in that part of Montana. But obviously if there were well worn bison trails, there had to be bison there at least some of the time. Clark just didn't see them.

The second thing I've learned from reading dozens of books by early explorers and trappers is that wildlife abundance varied a lot due to season, etc. For instance, if you travel around Yellowstone, even in the "good old days" of the 1980s when there were almost 20,000 elk on the northern range and many more in other herds, it was fairly unusual to see a lot of elk in the summer months except around Mammoth and other places where relatively tame elk hung out.

But in the winter, when the snows forced them down to lower elevations, you would see a lot of elk in the Lamar and around Gardiner, etc.

But summer is a different situation because the elk are widely scattered and at high elevations--even in the days before wolves scattered them further.

I had a friend that did a 75 day backpack around the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the mid 1980s. This was at a time when many were suggesting there were "too many" elk in Yellowstone. In that 2 1/2 months he saw only about 100 elk and most of them were in one herd seen in one place on one day. Most days he did not see a single elk. Yet this was at a time when there were reported to be close to 100,000 elk in the GYE. Again had you read his journals of his hike a hundred years from now, you might conclude there were no elk in Yellowstone. But you would be very wrong in that assumption.

This is important because almost all the early journal entries for traveling in the Yellowstone area as well most of the West were written by observers traveling in summer. So the season of observation is critical as is elevation and even the weather that may have dominated at a particular time.

For instance, the earlyi 1800s was much colder and snowier than present. Snow and cold affected where wildlife was seen.

Drought and other factors also influenced distribution and abundance. In the days before fences, the bison, for instance, could move hundreds or even thousands of miles to seek out lush growth during droughts. It might be a drought in Montana, but lush in Colorado, for instance. So it would be easy for someone traveling in Montana to report almost no bison, while someone in Colorado might suggest they were very abundant.

You know, I have a question for you geo. Your friend who took the long backpack trip, you probably never asked him but I was wondering what the rangeland looked like to him with all that abundance of elk. Obviously even if he did not see that many, they certainly must have ate a chunk of acerage in feed. Just wondering.........

Having spent a lot of time wandering Yellowstone and the surrounding country, the elk have very little effect in the summer. Though there were nearly 100,000 elk they were spread over 27 million acres in the summer (which why you don't see very many in summer). They are widely dispersed, and their effects on plants is minimal.

Winter is a different situation because they are concentrated by snow. Then they can have a significant effect on browse--mostly shrubs and trees. Even when there were lots of elk, their effects on rangelands (grasses) was insignificant except in a very few places. This was due to several things. Snow covered much of the grasses making them unavailable or difficult to graze. Plus in winter grasses are dormant and can be cropped without too much impact on plants. Finally soils are frozen which means you are not breaking down banks and/or compacting soils.

Regarding your statement that wolves probably were not mentioned in early writings because they were so common. That doesn't wash, Lt. Gustavus Doane kept a careful record of every living thing they saw.
There is a book by General W.E. Strong of a trip made by he and a couple other generals along with the inspector general of the army, to Yellowstone NP in 1875. Hunting wolves was on the agenda, they never saw one inside the park, and shot a wolverine instead.
The records of the extirpation of the wolves speaks for itself...56 adult wolves and 80 pups.
The whole wolf thing was a farce from the beginning to get rid of food producers and hunters. It also gave a lot of power to those craving it. It has made a ton of money for "researchers" who apparently do not even know how severely the elk are being impacted or they are trying to hide it. They had no intention of counting elk this winter until Montana counted their part of the northern herd and came up with the 2236 elk remaining.

Is it just me or are we wasting a lot of time talking about how things were in the 1800's? We are dealing with wolves NOW. Wolves were wiped out by poisoning, trapping and being chased 12 months out of the year. Dens are and were easy to find and you could wipe out a whole pack in no time. We don't do that any more. We merely want to control them in the fall. They will be wild again if we regulate them through hunting. Why do we chose to overcomplicate things? Oh yeah, it's because the wackos want to generate money for nothing.

Please post whether or not you are a MT, WY or ID resident. There are no full time residents that want wolves to be unmanaged. If you say there are then simply back up your data with some figures....not bogus figures. We know better so save yourself the time. It's amazing how ridiculous some of you non-residents are.

I'm from MT, 40 years. Where are you from?

Steve, post your data that shows that all montanians want wolves managed. That's right, you have none. You are just assuming. Not everyone in MT is a wolf hater like you.

save,

I don't need to post my data because we will be hunting lots and lots of wolves this fall which is what I want. I have nothing to fight for at this point so why would I go through the trouble? If you want the wolf unmanaged then you go out and collect data to make the changes you want. You obviously have lots of free time.

So those of us that fought for wolf management are wolf haters??

Ok.

savethebs, what dictionary do you use that indicates management equals hatred? There are real people who live out here, and we need to be able to make a living and survive. We do not exist to provide entertainment for enviros. Get over yourselves.
Steve, I have posted information to try to prove to these idiots that the wolves in Yellowstone were nowhere near as prevalent naturally in the 19th century as what they planted and are trying to raise now. Far from trying to reach some mythical balance of the past the wolves today are being used as a pawn for controlling people by some, and for generating money by others. Yellowstone is totally out of balance now.

Todd and Steve, just ignore the "save the wolfies" fella or school kid. I run into these people often enough on the internet. No amount of data or what we see in real life will change their minds. We have a group on you tube you might be interested in and share alot of the same viewpoints. A couple of elk fellas from northern idaho and a few from wyoming have put up a site http://www.savewesternwildlife.com. I have discussed these very topics with these fellas for several years now on you tube. They are getting very good at videos. Find some of rockholm66 videos on there and you will see what I mean. He is from around Sandpoint, Idaho and a great man who in his spare time has put together a nonprofit (I gave him a bad time about that, just like defenders of wildlife, ha ha, only on the other side of the issue) organization to help save the elk and moose and get the facts out. These guys are serious and you will probably see some countersuits going into court supporting the elk and moose. It appears that "courtrooms" are the only way anything is going to get done. Quite honestly, if you give moneys to nonprofits and wan

opps, cut off the rest....Steve, from Montana, 51 years old, never left the state....

Big Sky - yah, that sure is one impressive website. Rockholm66 is well known for the most boring, worst amateur home videos on the internet. Another anti-wolfer that fits in with the anti-predator crowd.

Thanks for the comment, Geo. I plan on taking a trip through yellowstone backcountry this year, provided things don't dry out to much and they shut the forests down. Never did much park stuff before, should be interesting.

Owl Creek is spot on. Rockholm66 has produced some of the worst videos I have ever endured watching. If as reported that's the brains and/or creative force behind http://www.savewesternwildlife.com , then the pro-Wolfers have nothing to worry about.

But don't take my word for it. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Rockholm66

spoken like a true wolf advocate who cares little for any animals but wolves.....

BigSky---you should not indict or vilify someone you do not know. And you do not know me at all. Rockholm66's fine video work speaks for itself and I am well qualified to critique it , not that it's necessary since at face value they tell one all that needs said...they're downright awful productions on the whole. The anti-wolf videos do not support anti-wolf cause at all. In fact, they very much work against it , in the eyes of the discerning viewer. And therein lies the distinction.

BTW--- If I did not care for elk and other ungulates, I wouldn't be so supportive of wolves. But again , how would you know ? ( you don't)

So, it appears we have one of the unspeakables, who also lament thier views by public critiques. Yet I see Mr. Rockholm as someone who is doing something (or trying to) rather than critiquing by computer. As I said, typical of the wolf worshippers. When the last elk is gone from some areas, people like you will stand up and point fingers, but it will be to late......

Rockholm is as clueless as wolf haters come and to big sky, elk herds are doing fine throughout the state of Idaho and Mt. and WY. I am sorry if that bothers you. It is natural for some elk herds to be down. If you knew anything about nature, you would understand this, but all you care about is having elk herds all over the place so that you hunters can hunt them. As I said, people like you care nothing about wildlife. I know you would love to lie and have others believe that wolves are decimating elk herds, but that is simply not true and there isno proof to suggest it and you know it. There was a recent data chart posted that showed that elk herds are good in most areas and down in a few.

bigsky

Iv'e been a Montana resident for most of my 52 years,family has owned land in NW Montana since the 1800's.
Every time I bring up that most of these wolf hugger wackos do not even live here they reply with some BS about how there are people in Mt. who do not want wolf hunting. I even posted that I could find no one to support their cause who lives in NW Montana,at least no year round residents.NO ONE I know wants more wolves,no one.
They started out this discussion saying hunters are an ignorant bunch,then went on to say the ranchers are part of the problem,just like the hunters.
Where do these people come from? They wanted the bears left alone down around Aspen,I have a friend who lives not far from there,got their way,then when there were too many bears and they were causing problems,they went to the state game dept.
I just left for Ohio yesterday,a friend was in a bad bike accident,and I have family here,and have been going to a doc here for a broken bone that did not heal,so I've been back and forth a lot.
The wackos here didn't want the local parks,or the Cuyahoga Valley Natl. park to kill deer by having a limited archery season in areas where it was safe. Now,they pay a group from out of state something like a half million to come in and shoot deer,at night,over bait. Makes no sense! Next problem here is going to be the coyotes,I am staying at my sisters house,14 miles from Cleveland,and there are coyotes everywhere,they howl all night,attack dogs eat the cats,legal to shoot out of the urban areas,but not around here,where there are far too many.
I say live trap a bunch of extra wolves from Mt,Id,Wy.,and bring em here,they will control the deer,the coyotes,then when they start eating all the wackos dogs,cats,Alpacas,llamas,all the other exotic animals,and attacking people,maybe then they will understand.

my 2 year old niece could make better videos than that clown rockholm. People like bigsky and rockholm have absolutely no clue about nature. All these clowns care about is having their elk to shoot and that's it. Bigsky, there was a recent data sheet posted that shows that elk herds are good in most areas and down in a few particularly the lolo zone, so tell me, where is your proof and data that elk herds are doing bad? That's right, you have nothing, but false assumptions.

By save the wolves

The areas where the elk herds are down are the areas where there have been wolves for at least 3 years. The wolves are decimating elk herds,you just take the data for the whole area, take the herds in areas where there are no wolves out of your data...the wolves are decimating the elk herds,that is a fact that you using skewed data,and all of your lawyers can not change.

BigSky--- you said a few posts north of here: "Yet I see Mr. Rockholm as someone who is doing something (or trying to) rather than critiquing by computer. As I said, typical of the wolf worshippers."

Normally I don't respond to such undignified retorts. But I have to say you know not of what you speak or your verbal blunderbuss dissipates.

I've been active in conservation issues since the 70's, before it was fashionable or became a blood sport.

And I worship nothing or no one.

Stay on topic. I am not the issue. And by the way , a quick review of the Rules of the Road for the media arts: If Rockholm66 chooses to put his videos out there for public consumption , he can expect some " honest" criticisms of same. I do not expect to see them in the finalists of the various mountain film festivals I attend, alas.

save the wolves

Show me your data,with the herds in areas where there are no wolves taken out.
Maybe then you will understand the facts.
What happened to the Northern Yellowstone herd? It is not from drought,less food,bad winters,it is from wolves,there are no longer enough elk left to sustain the herd.
An average wolf pack will kill 107 elk per year.In Montana there are at least 10 packs,that is 1070 elk per year. The 10 packs is just an estimate from past years data,more like 12-15 packs,from what I see around here.15 packs,107 per pack is 1605elk per year. Then you have the elk that die of natural causes,with no wolf predation,plus the elk killed by the growing number of mountain lions,and grizzlies. These numbers far exceed the numbers harvested by hunters during any year since state game dapts. and regulations were began.

The elk herds are managed for max hunter harvest by the state game depts,which hunters and fishermen pay for.
You people pay nothing toward wildlife management,you only pay the salaries of all the wackos in charge of your groups,and lawyers to file endless lawsuits.
Remember the president who created the National parks,and wilderness areas was a hunter,you morons have the man spinning in his grave.

Elk are managed for hunting...get over it.
It is legal to hunt wolves,and will continue to be legal...get over it.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/manage_issues/ung/elkupdate.cfm


what do you got to say for yourself now mt. hunter? where is your data? i know you don't have any.

The elk herds are managed for max hunter harvest by the state game depts,which hunters and fishermen pay for.

Mt, hunter, it is obvious you care only for elk herds and not other wildlife. All you care about is elk herds simply because all you care about is hunting elk. You have no facts to back up any of your claims and I posted the link to that data chart that shows real data.

mt, hunter, again, show me evidence that proves that wolves are the sole cause for low elk #s in yellowstone, you can't. You are only assuming. Assuming does not equal truth. Try again, You are a typical wolf haters who uses wolves as a scapegoat. This is expected from people like you. Where is your data that shows elk herds as a whole are doing bad, I am waiting. I showed you my data and that data comes straight from the Idaho fish and game.

Garten and Jon Rachael from Idaho Fish and Game say, even though elk struggle in the Lolo region, they're doing well in most of the rest of Idaho.

I guess idaho fish and game know something that you hunters don't huh?

save the wolves

You just do not read very well do you?
Elk ARE doing bad in areas where there are wolves,Also around yellowstone,and a few other areas,as I said,predation by Mountain lions,and grizzlies.
Lolo...Wolves
Yellowstone...wolves
Gallatin...wolves

NW MT/ID border areas...wolves.

I am in Ohio,and leaving to visit friend in intensive care,when I get back,here,I'll post links for you that support what I am saying.

to mt. hunter and bigsky, some more proof elk are doing good in Montana and other states as well as a whole. These #s come straight from the rocky mountain elk foundation, they are not skewed #s, they come straight from a hunting organization, read them and wheep.

Montana
Elk Population: 150,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 5 to 25/100
Nonresidents: $593 for regular drawing, $1,500 for
outfitter sponsored tags.

Elk populations in Montana remain at or above management objectives in most areas, including the southwestern portion of the state, which accounts for a considerable slice of the annual elk harvest and hunting pressure. However, a number of factors hint that hunters will work harder to find elk this fall. Although herd counts were incomplete at this writing, Quentin Kujala, chief of the Wildlife Management Bureau, points to tough wintering conditions in portions of western Montana as a factor that may decrease the number of yearling animals.

Elsewhere, recent regulations that opened the ent

http://www.rmef.org/hunting/features/articles/2009forecast.htm

mt. hunter, I provided you with real data from idaho fish and game and #s from the rmef, a hunting organization. Where is your data that says that wolves are decimating elk herds?

By save the wolves Post your data with the herds NOT in areas where there are wolf populations taken out .

mt, hunter, do you know how to read? Read that chart I posted a link to.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/manage_issues/ung/elkupdate.cfm

You have no data at all and you know it. Assumptions will get you nowhere.

How do you explain this mt. hunter?

Montana
Elk Population: 150,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 5 to 25/100
Nonresidents: $593 for regular drawing, $1,500 for
outfitter sponsored tags.

Elk populations in Montana remain at or above management objectives in most areas, including the southwestern portion of the state, which accounts for a considerable slice of the annual elk harvest and hunting pressure. However, a number of factors hint that hunters will work harder to find elk this fall. Although herd counts were incomplete at this writing, Quentin Kujala, chief of the Wildlife Management Bureau, points to tough wintering conditions in portions of western Montana as a factor that may decrease the number of yearling animals.

This is from 2009 from the rmef. Do they hold more credibility than you?

I find it a little stranger that hunters are claiming that wolves are decimating all of the elk herds meanwhile you have a hunting organization like the rmef saying different. hmmm

save the wolves

Obviously,you are the one who can't read,I'll be back in a couple hours,wolves ARE decimating elk herds in areas where there are wolves,i WILL post the links for you,I am not home,and they are not bookmarked on my sisters computer,I have to look them up,but I WILL post them. Later today.

save the wolves
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=36743
See: number 6 on pg vii
number 8,9,10 on pg viii
See elk population trends on pg 29
Read the whole report,in areas with no wolves,elk populations are higher and more stable,areas with wolves,Greater Yellowstone,Gallatin,Madison herds are nearing the point where they may not be able to sustain a population.
That is one reason why Montana is doubling the wolf qouta,Idaho has a higher wolf quota,and hunters did not come near harvesting the quota.
There are other predators besides wolves,but wolves eat the most elk. #9 wolf packs in the state of Montana,12-15 in NW Montana.
For the past 3 years I have seen more wolf tracks in winter than elk tracks,what does that tell you?
I really have to go,I'll post more links later,that are more detailed,and more current than 09.

savethewolves

Two zones have below 82 percent survival, with wolf predation the primary cause of mortality, but one has high wolf density and one very high density.
From Idaho report you posted....areas with high wolf populations have high elk predation...proves my point.

should have been 39 wolf packs in MT

Idaho Fish & Game Blames Wolves On Elk Decline

From an AP story in The Olympian:

Biologists with the state Department of Fish and Game say wolves are the primary cause of death among a shrinking population of cow elk in northern Idaho.

The agency estimates cow elk in a remote area designated as the Lolo Hunting Zone have dwindled by as much as 13 percent each year. A recent study of radio-collared cow elk indicates that for the most part, wolves are to blame, Fish and Game says.

I'm posting this for my brother,so please don't reply to me, he will be back in a couple hours.
Thank you.

Idaho Lolo zone Winter Elk count #'s are in..Unit 10 1473 elk counted, down from 9729 in 1994. Unit 12 705 elk counted, down from 3832 in 1995....blame habitat, winter, whatever..but wolves were added in 1995...and they wonder why some hunters are a little angry

The steady population of 600-650 non migrating, non hunted elk in the Norris/Firehole region of Yellowstone had dropped to 108 in 2008 with a calf retention between 0 and 4 for several years. It appears they are virtually extinct now.
The wolves are now taking out the Madison herd when they can find one. I saw a total of 17 animals Tuesday, which was down about 8 from last fall during the rut. The herd used to number in the hundreds before wolves.
Tuesday I also saw the Madison pack of 4-6 wolves decimate the carcass of a buffalo they had taken during the early morning. Any animal that can eat like that will destroy everything they can catch.
They were hauled in to kill elk and livestock....they do it well.

Like I said, Todd, MT hunter. You are wasting your breath with this kid. I am thinking I have seen his posts elseware. He is just aggrevating the situation to get attention. No amount of truth will convince him or his kind. Another example, moose in yellowstone 1200 in 1995, down to 114 in 2010. They may just go extinct also. Picking data and averaging it with areas with no wolves is ridiculous. Sure, the elk are doing fine in the missouri breaks (no wolves) or anywhere where wolves have not colonized the area. Everywhere they have, the numbers are dropping. How far? Who knows. The point the fish and game seem to be missing is that they could drop to 0. That is not a hunting issue, that is a survival issue. Even the critics on the antiwolf side of the issue say that won't happen. Extrapolate the data, fast approaching zero in some areas. Funny how the ol "bad winter" and "global warming" are killing elk and moose at an unprecidentated rate, like we never had bad winters before, or the "bear theory". How can a 3% "spike" in bear numbers be killing all the elk when bears have always taken elk calves for the first month? Wolves take them all year long. Less than 10% of calves in the northern yellowstone elk herd are making to one year. Bears? Yea, right. Keep playing the game, the clock is ticken.

By save the wolves

Do you even live in an area where there are wolves?
Or are you just a city,save all the animals from the evil hunters punk kid?

bigsky

Don't hear the wackos getting all upset about the possible extinction of moose in the greater yellowstone area,how come? because it goes against their absurd ideas that wolves do not effect elk,deer or moose populations.

I'm wondering how you barstool biologists--- Mssrs mountain hunter, Todd, bigsky, and ilk --- can explain that segments of GYE elk and moose populations were crashing BEFORE the wolves were reintroduced in 1995/96 ?

They were not crashing,some herds had fluctuations,and for your info I hold degrees in Biology,and Fisheries and Wildlife biology.
I've been out of the field since 96 due to complications from broken leg from a car accident.
I noticed I was the only one to suggest taking the elk counts from non-wolf areas out.
All the studies support the conclusion that wolf predation is having a greater than expected effect on ungulate populations in Montana,Idaho,and Wyoming. Some support this more so than others,but the bottom line is that there are far too many wolves for elk herds to sustain decent populations much longer.
Wolves have decimated several elk herds,moose around Yellowstone, and Mule and Whitetail deer will be next.
Believe what you want,I spend far more time outdoors in the backcountry than most. I know what I am seeing.

Dewey

The populations were not crashing in the GYA,they were naturally declining,due to populations reaching the carrying capacity of the local environment.The elk,moose,and deer overbrowsed the land,overgrazed some areas,and there was not enough food left to sustain the populations at the levels they had reached.

OK , Mr. Ex Biologist---here's are recent new reports about the serious decline in northwestern Wyoming moose populations by Wyoming , based on studies by Game and Fish biologist Scott Becker and his ongoing study. Becker was briefly "promoted" to one of 2 ( or 3? ) Wyoming Wolf Managers during that brief time we had delisting and state management in 2008. Becker's studies key in on nutrition and habitat as the leading cause of moose decline, especially after the 1988 fires

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=4399
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=5966

Now, about Elk. In my neck of the woods, a 5-6 year study of elk ecology in the Sunlight Basin area NW of Cody adjacent to Yellowstone has also pointed directly at nutrition ( probably resulting from climate change since the precip-vegetation rates are nearly exactly parallel) as the principal reason for very low pregnancy rates. The low elk calf recruitment ratios with respect to predation have been attributed to grizzly bear predation , not wolves. The current drought in that area is worse than even the Dust Bowl years of the 1930's.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_bcda5f30-5994-11df-afc3-001cc4c002e0.html

But frankly , you strident hunter types have just got to get used to the fact that wildlife populations go up and down for many reasons, and not even God can provide you with bountiful elk numbers year after year after year, nor would He want to , even though the state Game and Fish agencies apparently never got the Memo...

Mountain hunter

Two things about the Lolo Pass situation. First, the main reason elk are declining and have been declining for years in this area is that the forest has grown up since the 1910 Burn.

The overall quality of the browse has declined significantly. This has lead to lower reproduction, and lower physical condition in the elk herd. If you read the more detailed Fish and Game reports, they say as much.

Lowered physical conditions makes them more vulnerable to wolf predation. And wolves are doing what would otherwise happen due to starvation, winter storms, and/or means of natural population control.

Which is exactly what you want. We need for elk to decline over time. The entire idea that you can maintain a steady flow of animals over time is certainly contrary to natural systems which tend to oscillate over time. Just as a lodgepole pine forest tends to die from pine beetles or wildfire and then regrowth, elk, moose, and other ungulates also oscillate.

That is one of the major problems with state game agencies. They manage for steady state--which goes against all natural forces. It's like trying to maintain a steady flow in a river--the only way you do that is with a dam--and you have all kinds of problems like lack of scouring, sediment build up, loss of cottonwoods, and so forth.

"Mountain Hunter"

You are right on. No one or any proof or reasoning is going to sway "save the wolves" opinion.

It is true with many of these radicals and good examples of such are Michael Robinson of the Biological Diversity Center and John Marvel of Western Watersheds. These guys and the big shakers and doers of the different radical green groups are not interested in the wolves or spotted owls or the other hordes of endangered species they got listed by hook or crook. They are only interested in just getting rid of the public lands rancher number one and hunters will be next all behind the logging industry. Any consumptive uses on the federal domain and all of the private land they can possibly buy up is in danger. These guys are like talking to a mud fence and I think a mud fence is more receptive.

Their goal is to change the way much of west is run and who has control of the vast natural resource. We are in a fight for our very lives, livelihoods, custom, culture and what our fore fathers founded and worked so hard for. They are trying to x out the last 150 plus years and go back to their utopia or nirvana or what ever they have imagined in the deep recesses of their warped minds.

They consider humans or at least humans on our side, no better than a cat or a rat or a snail. This is even on one of their web sites. They think humans have and are totally devastating the land and the ecosystem.

Go ahead "save the wolves" and give us some more of your skewed statistics and propaganda and as stated earlier you are the one cherry picking the Idaho & Montana Game Dept. numbers and for sure are skewing the RMEF's data. Or if not skewing at least spinning it beyond recognition.

Sorry Dewey, I don't drink either. I am concerned for several reasons. (1.) My canadian friends say we are absolutely out of our minds to allow this wolf population to grow as it has. This comes from people who have had wolves since the beginning. They shoot, trap, use airplanes, poisons, whatever to remove them from some areas. There is no game in parts of canada due to wolf predation. (2.) I have a few friends in fish and game and they say mums the word. They know what is happening but cannot/will not do a thing until malloy makes his ruling. (3.) Regardless of what the biologist say, people who go out and watch elk (including the northern yellowstone herd) are seeing way less than 10 calves per 100 elk. Had a friend who watch 150 elk in the northern yellowstone herd and saw only 5 calves. Open hillside, no cover, no where for the year old calves to hide. Makes sense the wolves pick the calves first. Problem is the future of that herd is in grave jepardy. Now, if these biologists would get off the wagon and say yes, bears have an affect but the MAIN PREDATOR IS WOLVES, I would be a big supporter. Pretending there is not a problem is not the answer. I don't hear this from one elk watcher, I hear it universally from Wyoming thru Montana and Idaho, and the guys I talk to spend alot to time out of doors. Crashing before wolves? yea, right. Keep pretending and buying into the made up literature. When those populations crash completely, you will be saying the same thing, lies.

I posted data that comes from Idaho fish and game and #s that come from the rocky mountain elk foundation. I have data to support what I say, you have nothing but one link to an article.


How do you explain those #s from rmef big sky and mt. hunter huh?

http://www.newwest.net/?URL=http://www.rmef.org/hunting/features/articles/2009forecast.htm


How do you explain Jon Rachael from Idaho fish and game saying this, even though elk struggle in the Lolo region, they're doing well in most of the rest of Idaho.


Also, where is your proof that wolves are the sole cause for the low elk #s in yellowstone? Ofcourse, you have none. All you are doing is assuming and blaming everything on wolves.

Here are the facts, elk herds as a whole are doing good in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Some areas may be down, but that is natural and that is the way nature works, populations go up and down. All you are worrying about is elk herds and hunting them.

Tom, I am not skewing the rmef, data. The data is available on their website, nice try. I think you are frustrated and angered to know that elk herds are doing good state wide in the 3 states and all you want to do is lie thru your teeth and claim elk are being wiped out. You have no data at all to back that claim up.

George, they don't want elk to decline. All they care about are their elk hunting opportunities. They don't care about how nature was intended to work (populations going up and down), all they care about is hunting an elk.

Ok George, appears you are taking the company line here....I have no problem believing in fluctuations in populations, but funny how all at once we are having problems across three states with moose and elk populations, all at once, when it appears that the only places populations of these ungulates are crashing is where wolves roam. Show me an area where the moose population is declining where wolves are not present (or elk)....I am waiting....

bigsky, there are different reasons why animal populations may be low in certain areas, but to assume that wolves are the sole reason when you have no definite proof shows you are just an ignorant person using wolves as a scapegoat. Elk herds are doing great. Don't blame wolves for being an unsuccessful hunter. idaho fish and game will tell you the same as me, elk herds are doing good.

Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? ‘Not even close,’”says Brad Compton, of Idaho Fish and Game, according to a summary of elk hunting opportunities published by the foundation. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.”

Not cited is a sentence that states, “Elk populations are fairly stable statewide with areas of western Idaho trending upward, while wolves have had the biggest impact on the Lolo and Sawtooth zones on the Idaho/Montana border.”

"save the wolves"

Go to the RMEF website and click on News & Media and then bring up the news release titled "RMEF Turns Up The Heat On Pro Wolf Groups". It is a summary of David Allen's summary of the the state of the elk herds in areas where wolves are wiping out the elk and also just what I have said all along, that your side continues to use over all elk numbers.

"bigsky" makes a a very good point, wolves are making a big difference on elk and moose numbers where they are present, anyway you and George try to slice the pie.

Big game biologists that work for the Game Departments are always trying to blame weather and habitat and not predators. It evidently is something driven into their heads in school or wherever, but people like "bigsky" and "mountain hunter" and myself spend more time in the woods than most of those biologist put together and see a very different picture. George and your self have some very believable rhetoric for unsuspecting folks but doesn't fly with us.

I have friends and acquaintances that paint an entirely different picture in the Idaho's Lolo and Clearwater areas. Again "bigsky" hits it on the head no matter how you cut it, where wolves are present, elk and moose herds are on a very significant decline. You can stay here all day and night and aren't going to be able to refute this glaring fact to those of us who live our here and see what is happening.

Guys, it is absolutely useless to argue with anyone who insists that wolves are absolutely mandatory to regulate ungulate numbers, but......they absolutely never will impact the numbers negatively. With that mindset reality will never enter the picture. The same wolves that will consume virtually everything but hide and bones from an adult buffalo bull in one day, will quit eating if the prey species decreases too much....to hear them tell it!

Tom, Dave Allen is nothing more than someone who doesn't want to lose those who donate or are members of his rmef. The facts are facts, they posted data on their own website that says elk herds are good. Allen is flip flopping because he knows he might lose members. No one is skewing his data. His data without a doubt says that elk herds are doing good. Want me to post the data again? How do you explain that data from the rmef. As I said, all people like you care about is having high elk #s for your own selfish benefit. Wolves were brought back to eat elk. That is why they are there for. I am sorry that this clearly bothers you.

Dewey, that study about malnutrition in the elk also pointed to the fact that the wolves harrass them so much they are unable to put their heads down and graze, they have to browse and keep their heads up in order to stay alive.
As for the moose just falling over dead in an area loaded with predators, remember that study was done by Dr. Berger of missing jackrabbit fame. On top of that just google brucellosis and moose, you will learn that what studies have been done show that the disease does not impact fertility, it kills them.

Todd...quit smoking that stuff. It makes you see things that arent there...

Timmy (or save the wolfetts) go do your homework. George, although I disagree with almost everything you say most of the time, be it kicking the ranchers off of public land, putting wolves in every backyard, etc. I still enjoy the fact that we can actually have a conversation without the usual name calling (evil hunter, fish killer, etc, oh, I have used wolf hugger, sorry, not directed at you....), and I have listened to what you have said. All hunting logic and saving the wolves aside, I wonder if 114 moose in yellowstone at present is sustainable? Or are you of the opinion of some that say, "thats nature", and let them go extinct? I know you are a busy guy and traveling alot, but what do you think? As an afterthought, I wonder if they do go extinct, will we then possibly bring in northern canadian moose, which are much larger, to help feed the wolves? Food for thought, so to speak....

Sorry "save the wolves", but you didn't read David's letter and analysis because if you had you can see there is no flip flop, only a glaring refute to the Defenders of Wildlife and to people of your persuasion. Go look it up. You and George sure can't read very well and all you are doing is reading out information posted that only fits your agenda. David Allen absolutely blew the "Defenders" away and they know it and you know it so own up to it. David gives several examples of what the wolves are doing to many of the elk herds.

Overall numbers in most of the western states are stable to increasing due to management by hunting and at the same time controlled to match the habitat with proper herds numbers. Yellowstone Park can't be managed by hunting other than if the elk come out during a hunting season so a common sense number of wolves could possibly have been the answer there, but not uncontrolled as has happened, and now the herd is way down and going down on a precipitous decline plus moose are being severely if not fatally impacted.

tom, it is funny how people like you think you know more about wildlife than anyone else. I have not seen on piece of data that says wolves are wiping out elk herds. Do you base your assumptions on the fact that you need something to blame on why elk #s may be down, so wolves are the typical scapegoat. Fact is, rmef's data does infact state that elk herds are doing good and Idaho fish and game have stated that elk herds throughout the states are doing good. If you want to deny the truth and lie, continue doing so.

Tom, he is a flip flopper. Go take a look at the data. There is no denying it. His organization's data says that elk herds are doing good. Answer me this, how do you explain that data because it is right there on the site? Are you going to deny this data and concentrate on what he said about the dow? Don't ignore the data they posted. As I said, there is no skewing. These #s come from the rocky mountain elk foundation. Allen doesn't want to lose members of his organization, it's as simple as that. Now answer my question and stop avoiding it, how do you explain the clear data on the rmef site that says elk herds are doing good?

No Tom, I am reading information that the rocky mountain elk foundation POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITE. You stop the denying the facts and avoiding my questions and tell me how do you explain the #s and data that the rocky mountain elk foundation posted on their website. Their data says that elk herds are doing good. How do you explain that and don't gimme any of that reading info to fit your agenda nonsense. The data and #s comes from their website, no one else.

Yeah, it was a wasteland out here when Lewis & Clark came through. Everywhere you looked, piles of bones, horns, antlers. The danged wolves had et everything! Only camas was left...

By save the wolves

I gave you several links that support the FACT that wolves are wiping out elk IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE HIGH WOLF POPULATIONS. Even your RMEF site says this,as does the Idaho Fish and Game report.

You never answered the important question,do you even live in Montana,Idaho,or Wyoming?

Wherever you live,how about we release a few wolf packs in your neighborhood,let them run unchecked for 10-15 years,fund wolf studies at a 4-1 ratio to big game studies,then you tell me how the big game animals are doing in your area. Maybe when the wolves are down to eating dogs,cats,pet animals like llamas,alpacas,farm animals like sheep,goats,cattle,then start attacking humans,you can tell me how many more wolves there should be.

By George Wuerthner

Some of what you say is true,forests growing up,declining quality browse,however the number of elk killed by wolves is hurting the population of the herd in the Lolo area,read the Idaho fish and game reports,read the links I posted (and my sister posted for me).
All say in areas with high wolf populations,wolves are the main reason for the decline in elk numbers.
Populations fluctuate,that is a fact,availability of food,drought,fires,harsh winters ect. all effect numbers in elk herds.
You know as well as I do that the game depts. manage elk herds for max. hunter harvest,in many areas,the wolves are taking far,far more elk than the hunters.A 3% increase in grizzly populations does not account for all the elk kills,more wolves do.
I can post links all night/all day,no one on this forum,except the hunters will even bother to check them out. Using total elk numbers IS skewing the data,use elk numbers in areas with wolf packs,then the numbers are way different.
Sure,some other things in an ecosystem improve with lower elk numbers,they also improve with lower wolf numbers.
It is not just wolves,it is wolves,mountain lions,grizzlies,black bears,and coyotes,pretty much in that order,then last is hunter harvest,which goes up and down due to hunter sucess,which is affected by weather during season,exact timing of the rut,number of tags issued,where they hunt,and elk herd health.
Many studies point out changes in elk behavior in areas with high wolf numbers,also lower numbers of calves born.
You also know as well as I do that the gray wolf is far from being an endangered species. You also know that the number of tags issued for wolves does not mean that is going to be the number killed. As wolves get hunting pressure,they will adapt to it,and hunters will see fewer wolves.You also should realize this.
Before the re-introduction into Yellowstone I would see wolf tracks occasionally,small increase in the number of tracks yearly,since at least the early 80's. So,there was some natural migration from Canadian packs.
Hunting the wolves is simply a sound management tool,it works in Canada,works in Alaska,why won't it work in MT,ID,WY?
The gray wolf was sucessfully re-introduced,now there are too many for the available food base,and hunting wolves is legal,we do not need higher wolf numbers,and no study supports that shooting some wolves will lead to more pups,and a higher population of younger wolves which need to eat more,this is simply not fact.
Reduce the wolf population,and all the hunters who pay for the tags,the outfitters and guides,the motel and restaurant owners,and the ranchers will all be happy.
Those who want the wolves should be happy,the wolves are here,the populations are high,they are in NO danger of becoming extinct.Hunters vote,we pay taxes,and many,many people earn a living from hunting in the areas where the wolves are,1995-2009,long enough for only one side to have a say in this matter.... our turn.

savethewolves

Why don't you turn your attention to the east coast,there are plenty of areas that could support wolves...... Appalaichans,Adirondacks,Alleghenies,Great Smokies,Southern Ohio,The Cuyahoga Valley National Park,The swamps of NC,VA,GA,FLA,LA,Texas could use a few packs,The barrier islands in TX,NC,the FLA Keys,Put them back in the Sierras,start in Sequoia/Kings Canyon Natl. Park,some could chase the climbers around El Capitan,let em go in Redwood Natl. Park,Channel Islands.
Dont forget the Everglades,wolves could live there.They could compete with all the exotic snakes that morons let go down there for the game.
Let a bunch go on the border with AZ,NM,TX,save a few bucks on border patrol agents patrolling those areas.
So,which state do you live in?

By taz alago

There were no large populations of humans when Lewis and Clark came through.
What all of you don't seem to comprehend is that people live here now,lots of people,wolves and humans,and human activities just do not mix.
Man has been the dominant predator on the earth ever since we figured out how to make stone tools,and spears,bows and arrows,ect.
People hunt,a lot of people earn a living from hunting related activities,the wolves are lowering elk populations in many areas,and are going to put people out of buisiness.
Wolves are not an endangered species,it is legal to hunt them,they will continue to be hunted,get over it.

By save the wolves, 5-20-10

No Tom, I am reading information that the rocky mountain elk foundation POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITE


READ ALL THE INFO ON THE WEBSITE,they DO SAY WOLVES ARE DECIMATING SOME ELK HERDS.
Read all the info from the Idaho site,they say the same thing,plus wolves are lowering calf birth rates.
Read ALL the links I posted,and my sister posted for me,If you don't feel that is enough info,I can post 10-15 more links for you.
WOLVES ARE NOT AN ENDANGERED SPECIES!!!
IT IS LEGAL TO HUNT WOLVES!!!!
IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE LEGAL TO HUNT WOLVES!!!


GET OVER IT!!!!

WHERE DO YOU LIVE? ANY OF THE STATES INVOLVED?
.

By Dewey, 5-20-10

"OK , Mr. Ex Biologist---here's are recent new reports about the serious decline in northwestern Wyoming moose populations by"

Heres what I already said...

"The elk,moose,and deer overbrowsed the land,overgrazed some areas,and there was not enough food left to sustain the populations at the levels they had reached."

You post a report that says the same thing I said.

You don't have a job, do you stw? You're not good at math either. Is that why you got fired?

Do the math on how many elk a wolf eats in a year and then do the math on how many elk we have. How you can be so stupid to argue your pathetic points is really amazing. Do we have vegetarian wolves and no one has told us yet? Continue that study with the moose issue and get back to me. You are the biggest waste of hot air I've ever seen. Show us the data on livestock losses. What is killing them?

I've never seen your level of ignorance stw. It's shocking.

By Steve the Wolves

Non comprehension of facts must be a requirement to be in any of the save the wolves groups.
STW gives a link to Idaho fish and game,and if you actually read the whole article...it says that areas with high wolf populations have much lower elk herd counts.Giving links that support our view,not the STW view?
Brilliant strategy! Total genuises aren't they?

Save the wolves still refuses to answer a simple question,where does he or she live?
Not in NW Montana,I can't find anyone around here who wants more wolves.
I only give NW MT as where I live,that is all STW has to do,even the state would be an answer.
My guess....East coast somewhere,or California,or around Aspen,or one of the other hippie/yuppie towns.

This one is worth repeating.....

ok, let's have more of these disasters across the country. introduce wolves in all our urban areas. central park, nyc could use a few packs. chicago could have a couple. LA could use several packs to help control gangs. disney could take quite a few especially in animal kingdom. air dropping several rogue wolves into selected sporting events would be enetertaining. the masters, super bowl, nba finals, maybe even selected baseball venues.

By jerry black

"They conduct no studies on what the affect of removing top predators will have on the bio-diversity of an area."

Maybe that is because about 75% of money for game studies in Montana is for wolf studies, only 25% or so for big game studies.

Man is still the top predator,besides,there are now too many wolves in some areas.
Elk herds are managed for max. hunter harvest,not for wolves decimating some elk herds.Us hunters pay FWP to do this through the purchase of tags. Ammo,rifles,clothing,we pay tax on these things and more. Non resident hunters pay higher tag fees,and must pay for a guide,or an outfitter,elk hunting supports many local buisinesses.We bring 400 million anually to the state through hunting,and a lot of motels,restaurants,gunsmiths,guides,
outfitters,gun dealers,basically entire small town economies will go out of buisiness if wolves are allowed to continue to increase
populations unchecked.
There are no lazy elk hunters around here,can't be lazy in this terrain,I've seen city guys who couldn't even walk after a few days in the woods here...too far out of shape. No motorized access here,hike it,or ride a horse(in some areas)
I don't know where you get the lazy hunter BS,but there are very few of us that are lazy hunters. Even hunting with an outfitter,after riding in to a spike camp,you still have to hike to hunt.There is no take a few steps from the road,walk into a meadow/field and shoot an elk,must have seen that one on TV.

Nice how at bottom right of page there is an ad for elk hunting.
Maybe they are giving up?
Realize we are not going to shut up,go away,or stop hunting wolves?

By the real mike, 5-16-10

"Horse manure! The state of the wolf reintroduction down there, the outrageous local ranting by you hillbillies from Hell, and the number of those wolves that have been illegally taken discredits everything you say!"

You obviously do not live in an area with a wolf population,and you get all of your so-called "facts" from radical enviro sites,mags,
or radical enviros on tv or talk radio.
Maybe too much tofu and granola has left you with some type of nutritional imbalance that affects your ability to think for yourself.
Get your info from the state game depts,and from actual studies done by someone credible,not wackos.

\Mt. hunter, elk herds are not going to be managed for max hunter harvest anymore. Wolves are back and are going to eat and kill elk, get over it. The times where hunters control the elk populations are now over and now that job belongs to the wolves. Here is information posted by the rocky mountain elk foundation on their own website, read it and wheep your eyes out. First, I'll do Montana, than Idaho, and finally Wyoming.

Montana
Elk Population: 150,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 5 to 25/100
Nonresidents: $593 for regular drawing, $1,500 for
outfitter sponsored tags.

Elk populations in Montana remain at or above management objectives in most areas, including the southwestern portion of the state, which accounts for a considerable slice of the annual elk harvest and hunting pressure. However, a number of factors hint that hunters will work harder to find elk this fall. Although herd counts were incomplete at this writing, Quentin Kujala, chief of the Wildlife Management Bureau, points to tough wintering conditions in portions of western Montana as a factor that may decrease the number of yearling animals.


Idaho
Elk Population: 107,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 10 to 50/100
Nonresidents: $142 hunting license plus $373 elk tag

Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? Not even close, says Brad Compton of Idaho Fish and Game. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.” Populations are fairly stable statewide, with areas of western Idaho trending upward, while wolves have had the biggest impact on the Lolo and Sawtooth zones on the Idaho/Montana border. For 2009, caps will occur on tags offered in the Sawtooth and Diamond Creek elk zones.

“We had a fairly mild winter with high survival,” says Compton. Idaho elk hunters enjoy around a 20 percent success rate on average. In an area such as the Lolo zone, elk are holing up more often in security cover. Compton suggests hunters who enjoy hunting whitetails in cover should try the same tactics for elk. He adds that the biggest change in the regs could be a wolf hunt this fall.

Wyoming
Elk Population: 105,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 11 to 40/100
Nonresidents: $577 for regular drawing, $1057 for special drawing, $288 for cow/calf.

“This is a noteworthy era in elk history,” reports Jeff Obrecht, chief information officer with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Noteworthy, he explains, because the Cowboy State elk populations are at or above objective. Elk hunting opportunities have never been higher. Antlerless tags are abundant, ramping up the odds of filling a freezer with white‑paper packages of succulent elk entrees.

Burgeoning populations in

All of this info comes straight off of the rocky mountain elk foundation's website. It is not skewed at all. Read it and wheep. Dave Allen is flip flopping because he knows that members of his organization are elk hunters. If you want to deny this information, continue doing so.

mt,. hunter, there are indeed lazy hunters and you are probably one of them. Gone are the days of the easy elk hunt. Now, you really have to work hard in order to get your elk. Stop blaming wolves for the reason why you fail to get an elk and stop using the lame excuse, wolves are killing all of the elk.

There is one place where wolf management is a greenie dream and that is Yellowstone. The wolves there are killing each other for territory, dying of distemper and whatever else they contract, are mangy and sick. On top of that they have virtually wiped out the food supply for themselves as well as the bears.
There is a sow griz this year with 4 coy, how long before a pack of wolves kills the babies? Griz are much rarer than wolves over all, but wolves were hauled in to take over the park.

By save the wolves

1) Read all of the info,areas with high wolf populations have low elk populations.
2) The counts are for the ENTIRE STATE,not areas with wolf packs.
3)Go to all the links my sister and I posted yesterday,read ALL the info.
4)Elk will continue to be managed for max hunter harvest,wolves are now part of the equation,and will also be managed so that they stop decimating elk herds. wolf hunting is legal,get over it.
5) I posted facts for you,you don't bother to check them out,you continue with your flawed numbers.
6) Some of the links you give do not support your position if you read the whole thing! Including RMEF,and Idaho fish and game sites.
Last) Elk herds are managed for max hunter harvest because we pay for them to be managed that way,through fees,taxes,and our donations to groups like RMEF. Your type only donates money to lawyers to try to stop wolf hunting,and to increase their populations beyond what is a balanced ecosystem.

mt. hunter, don't you worry, I believe in the future wolves will return to some of the places they used to roam. Wolves don't belong in cities. They belong in wilderness areas. Just because you think they may pose a threat to the only animal you care about (since all you care about is hunting it), does not mean wolves don't belong in your state. Wolves are now the ones that will control elk populations. If you want to get down to simple facts, wolf attacks account for only a small fraction of sheep and cattle losses in the northern rockies, disease, weather, and coyotes each take more. I hope you enjoy reading all of that info I posted and got off of the rocky mountain elk foundation website.

Todd, that is what animals do and where is your proof that they wiped out the food source? Another assumption you can't back up I'm sure.

Todd, one last thing before I go, do you have any proof at all that suggests that wolves are the sole cause for the low elk #s in yellowstone or are you just assuming them to be the sole cause? It is really easy to use wolves as scapegoat huh Todd? You have no proof what so ever that wolves are the sole cause for low elk #s in yellowstone huh?

By save the wolves
I have never been a lazy hunter and never will be.
I see you are reduced to name calling now,because all of your so-called facts have been disproved by myself and others,go back and actually read what is in all the suggested links.

You live nowhere near NW Montana,probably been in the city all of your life,are a spoiled brat,parents take care of everything for you,never did an honest days work in your entire life,and believe that animals talk to each other.
You most certainly do not live in the real world,you live in some fantasy land where there are no people who have to work for a living,animals are everywhere,and there are no problems,the wolves are friends with the bears,deer and elk,and they all talk to each other.

So, the #s on the rmef's website are flawed huh moutain hunter? Comedy right there. The days of the max elk harvest are over and long gone. As, I said wolves are back and they are going to and will eat elk. Your money does not entitle you to more elk than wolves or anyone else. No question about it, you look at rmef's #s they posted and it's clear to see wolves are doing good in the whole state and Idaho fish and game have said elk are doing good throughout the whole state. They may be down in some areas, but that is PERFECTLY NATURAL. Ofcoure, all you worry and care about is max elk hunter harvest mt. hunter. Later.

By save the wolves

So,you live nowhere around here,have no clue what goes on,and you do not get your info from credible sources,the RMEF supports my view,not yours,if you actually read all of it which you haven't done.
The wolves wiped out the elk and the moose in Yellowstone proven fact you just do not read all the info,you see 2 or 3 sentences that support your views and stop reading.

So you are just a spoiled little brat,probably on your way to school now.

Wolves kill many sheep,and cattle in the northern rockies,we live here,we see it every day,you only hear about these things from your wolf hugger sites.
If you were here you would not call me a lazy hunter,because I am not for one,and for two,I would slap you silly.
This is the real world,wolves cause a lot of damage here,they start killing sheep or cattle,then they keep on killing them because it is an easy meal for them.
It is legal to hunt wolves,wolves will continue to be hunted,Montana is doubling our quota this year.
We won,you lost...get over it.

Save the wolves, you must be one of the rangers telling folks at Mammoth that the reason there is only one bull during the elk rut is because the bull elk stay in the mountains for the breeding season.......
You jsut never make the connect of extremely low elk numbers in areas of high wolf numbers do you? Simply no connection in your mind.

By save the wolves

Either you can't read,or you can't comprehend what you read...try this..

Go to the RMEF website and click on News & Media and then bring up the news release titled "RMEF Turns Up The Heat On Pro Wolf Groups". It is a summary of David Allen's summary of the the state of the elk herds in areas where wolves are wiping out the elk and also just what I have said all along, that your side continues to use over all elk numbers.

One more time,the numbers you are using are for the whole states
not the areas where there are wolves. read the stuff in the link,then tell me again how the elk herds are doing in areas with high wolf populations.
A small wolf pack eats 107 elk per year,do the math,there will be no sustainable elk populations in these areas if the wolf numbers are not lowered.

I don't know why you can't comprehend the facts presented to you,unless you just refuse to believe in facts.

Todd

He or she just doesn't want to believe that we are right,and their side is wrong.
I will not reply to stw any longer,gave lots of facts,all were ignored.

Todd and mh, wasting your time with timmy the tard (turd). He is "save the wolves" here, but tim on you tube. He is a attention troll from philadelphia. Gotta be, same arguments, not logic, no reality. Not worth your time. Thanks for the great posts. I always find it nice to see that others in our state care about our wildlife and its management. Nice points and good logic. Might run into you fellas somewhere in our state. I am starting early this year, antelope archery starts august 15th. I have a full schedule of grouse, ducks, pheasants, deer, elk, and the new species WOLF for the fall. I would really like to see them extend that wolf season till the end of december. Some people golf, I like to hunt. Funny thing is, I seldom shoot an elk, but I love having a reason to walk those mountains! Good hunting to you.

Mountain Hunter and Big Sky,

I say ditto. It is too bad the real story can't be told but unfortunately their side gets most of the press ( pro wolf propaganda).

bigsky, I have no idea who you are talking about, you got me confused with some other fella. My name is Andrew and I live in the upper peninsula in Michigan, so I know a thing or two about wolves given the fact that we have a couple hundred of them here. Mountain hunter, hunters here are blaming wolves for low deer #s, but when you get the chance to actually look at #s, hunters by far kill more deer than wolves and I have the #s to back that up. As I said, in some areas, elk #s may be low, but that is all part of the natural process, do you understand and get that? No more are the days of max elk harvest. Those days are gone now since the wolves are back. You hunters had your reign for long enough, but now it's the wolves turn. You talk about hunters and money, those are our public lands we the taxpayers pay for that you are hunting on and that wildlife you kill belongs us who don't hunt. The elk statewide in those 3 states are doing good. If you want to deny this fact, please continue doing so. There are many different reasons why elk #s may be low in certain areas, but that is natural. You cannot expect elk #s to be as high as before. The wolves are back and they will continue to eat elk. As I said, those max elk harvest days are gone. If you want to cherry pick and complain about how elk are done in certain areas, fine, but if we are talking about the whole elk population in those 3 states, the populations are doing good. Don't use some lame excuse for the reason why you are an unsuccessful elk hunter. Too often, hunters use a predator as an excuse. Man up and accept that you failed to get an elk. Take responsibility for your failures instead of passing the blame elsewhere. Goes for you too Tom.

Honesty From A Wolf Hunter About Wolves And Elk
Print this page
Posted September 23, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Tags: biogems, idahowolfhunt, montanawolfhunt, wolf, wolfhunt, wolves, yellowstone, yellowstonewolves


In an article about the first wolf killed by a hunter in northern Montana, the hunter that killed the wolf, Dan Pettit, offers some surprisingly candid commentary on wolves and elk in the Northern Rockies.

One of the most common -- and most erroneous -- gripes from the anti-wolf community is that wolves have annihilated the elk population in the Northern Rockies.

When asked about wolves and elk, Pettit gave an honest answer:

"Do wolves affect elk? Absolutely. But in my opinion, the story of the wolves going into a basin and decimating the elk herd just isn't true."

Pettit is right, the "wolves have decimated all the elk" argument isn't true, and it's encouraging to hear a wolf hunter admit that.

What are the facts? According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which is certainly not a wolf-loving organization, the elk population in the Northern Rockies has skyrocketed in the last twenty-five years, notwithstanding the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s. Wyoming's elk population has grown 35%, Idaho's has grown 5%, and Montana's a whopping 66%.

So, how have wolves affected elk? Simple: the presence of wolves on the landscape has made elk act more like . . . well, ummm . . . elk.

When wolves, a native predator to the Northern Rockies, were eradicated from this region in the 1930s, elk lost their primary predator and stopped behaving like wild elk. They became less cautious and overbrowsed streamside vegetation, which negatively affected beavers, songbirds, and coldwater fish species like trout.

The reintroduction of wolves has been an ecological boon to the Northern Rockies. So much so, in fact, that scientists hope to restore wolves to other ecosystems for purely ecological reasons -- chief among them the ecological devastation caused by overbrowsing elk. An article about the need to restore wolves to Olympic National Park in Washington noted:

Most famously, [two ecologists] showed that within three years after wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and elk populations fell, pockets of trees and shrubs began rebounding. Beavers returned, coyote numbers dropped and habitat flourished for fish and birds.

It was an "explosive" discovery, said David Graber, regional chief scientist for the National Park Service. "The whole ecosystem re-sorted itself after those wolf populations got large enough."

The elk population in the Northern Rockies is strong -- stronger than it was a quarter century ago -- but elk use the landscape differently with wolves present -- they use it in a more natural, ecologically friendly way.

And that means hunters have to hunt elk differently. They need to cover more ground and move around the landscape more. In essence, they need to hunt.

Pettit admitted that, too:

Wolves, he said, surely have changed the way deer and elk act in the wilds, and that's changing the ways hunters must hunt.

Sure, hunters need to hunt differently nowadays, but the elk are still here, they're here in great numbers, and hunters can still find them, as evidenced by Petit's recent trip into the backcountry:

"But in that same small basin, on the same morning we saw the eight wolves, we also saw seven cow elk. Right there in the same little drainage with the wolves.

The very next day, in fact, one of his hunting partners shot a five-point bull elk in the same area.

NRDC and other groups fought hard to stop the premature wolf hunts from proceeding, and it's difficult to read about Pettit or any other hunter killing a wolf.

But it's refreshing to see a wolf hunter finally talk straight about wolves in the heated debate over how they should be managed. I hope others take notice.

What are the facts? According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which is certainly not a wolf-loving organization, the elk population in the Northern Rockies has skyrocketed in the last twenty-five years, notwithstanding the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s. Wyoming's elk population has grown 35%, Idaho's has grown 5%, and Montana's a whopping 66%.

So, how have wolves affected elk? Simple: the presence of wolves on the landscape has made elk act more like . . . well, ummm . . . elk.

No amount of logic will persuade you, timmy. Not worth the time trying.

So, how have hunters affected wolves? Simple: the presence of hunters on the landscape has made wolves act more like . . . well, ummm . . . wolves.

Wyoming's elk population has grown 35%, Idaho's has grown 5%, and Montana's a whopping 66%.
More skewed numbers from save the wolves!!!

While the elk population in areas with high wolf numbers have much lower elk numbers.
Using numbers from the whole states,or regions,do not provide accurate data about wolf predation of elk. The state game depts. of MT,Id,and WY ALL say that after studies on wolf predation were completed,wolf predation is having a negative effect on elk in the areas with high wolf numbers.The RMEF says the same thing if you take the time to read all data,a link was posted on this forum to the RMEF statements on wolf predation.

The eastern states like Michigan and Minnesota do not have large problems with wolf predation,the main prey species is whitetail deer,which are more numerous, mobile,do not stay grouped together like elk,and have higher fawn birth rates than elk.They can reproduce faster.

There are at least 39 known wolf packs in Montana,each pack kills an average of 107 elk per year,do the math.

Andrew,or Timmy or whatever your name is,you worry about your wolves in Michigan,let those of us WHO ACTUALLY LIVE in the Northern Rockies worry about how we manage the wolves here.

The first Montana hunter who legally killed a wolf was named Perry Zumwalt,that wolf was shot in the Absaroka/Beartooth wilderness area. Your info,as usual, is incorrect save the wolves,mine is from the Great Falls Tribune,where was your little made up story from? I don't believe you gave all the facts about that hunter,or all of his views.
The first hunter to take a wolf in Idaho was harrassed by your kind,his home was vandalized,his truck was vandalized,then when it got out to the news media what was being done to him; public opinion of your type went down the toilet. You can find out all about that hunter,and the BS he had to put up with from your type at field and stream magazine.
You do have as much right to use public land as us hunters do,you just do not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do.
Seeing as how you are a flatlander,you could not keep up with me for even 1 full day in the woods,you are too far out of shape,and not used to the altitude. There is nothing in Michigan to prepare you for hiking the Northern Rockies,except maybe running from all the gang-bangers.
So,Save The Wolves,now we all know,as I guessed in the beginning,you are not from this area,and have spent NO TIME in the backcountry here,WE SEE WHAT IS GOING ON,you DO NOT,you get all your info from anti-hunting people,the RMEF link you give actually supports MY point of view,not yours,you never read all the info. You just worry about Michigan,we'll worry about the northern rockies,when you live here,you may have some credibility,until then you don't.

FYI to save the wolves

None of us posting on this site ever commented on whether or not we "Got our elk" that is something you keep repeating.
Like I told you,you being a flatlander,are not even capable of keeping up with me for even a day in the woods. Where I hunt,which is far from most others,I have no problem "gettin my elk" I am not that concerned about whether or not I actually do get my elk,being out in the backcountry is half of why I hunt elk,
if a hunter puts in the time in the off-season,scouting areas where he will hunt,he will get his elk.
That is in the areas with healthy elk populations,of which there are less,due to over-predation by wolves,grizzlies,mountain lions,coyotes.
The only way to have unchecked wolf populations is to have ZERO PEOPLE,no farming,no ranching,no homes,no roads,then there would not be issues with over predation of a single species.

Your type who only want to take pictures,does not understand that man is the apex predator,as long as people live in this area,the elk herds will continue to be managed for max hunter harvest,whole towns economies depend on it. We have paid to manage the elk herds,wolves are having a negative impact,it is not a "Normal population swing" it is wolves killing far too many elk,they are also killing far too many cattle,sheep,goats,dogs,even horses. Money to study wolves is about 4 times the budget for studying big game.
If you actually wanted to do something positive for wolves,donate money to a state game dept. not one of your radical enviro sites/groups. The bottom line is the states are who will be manging the wolves from now on.
Wolf hunting is legal,get over it.
If the elk herds were in no danger,as you say,we would not be complaining,we live here,we see what is going on,you do not.

Save the wolves
Some states actually think before releasing wolves. You'll lose this one.

Safari Club Weighs in on Elk Herd Thinning
From the story on KJCT.com in Grand Junction, Colorado:

A hunting group now has the chance to make its case for using sharpshooters to thin the elk herds in Rocky Mountain National Park. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a lower court erred in not allowing the Safari Club to become a party in a lawsuit filed by an environmental group. WildEarth Guardians filed its lawsuit in 2008 after park officials approved a plan to use federal and state employees as well as volunteers to kill elk in the park. WildEarth Guardians said park officials didn't fully consider the release of wolves to reduce the herds before it decided on sharpshooters. Park officials say overgrazing by the elk herd in and around the park has damaged habitat and threatened other species.

After the mess created by releasing wolves in Yellowstone,other states don't want the problems.

You belong to,or approve of Wild Earth Guardians don't you?
Probably a member of PETA too.

Park officials say overgrazing by the elk herd in and around the park has damaged habitat and threatened other species.

Wolves should be brought in.

Wyoming's elk population has grown 35%, Idaho's has grown 5%, and Montana's a whopping 66%.

Actually, these #s come from the rocky moutain elk foundation. If you wanna accuse anyone of using skewed info, tell the rmef that. I am only telling you what the rmef said. You have no right to hunt animals for sport on our public lands. Also, as I said, the days of max elk harvest for hunters is long gone. Do you understand that? Wolves were brought in for different reasons and managing elk was one of those reasons. The only one using skewed info is you. You have to get over it and accept the facts, max elk harvest is gone. It's a thing of the past. Wolves are the elk's natural predator. Blaming and using wolves as the scapegoat for the reason why you are able to get an elk is beyond pathetic.

According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, elk are flourishing. Just exactly how good is it?

“The elk population in the Northern Rockies has skyrocketed in the last twenty-five years, notwithstanding the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s. Wyoming’s elk population has grown 35%, Idaho’s has grown 5%, and Montana’s a whopping 66%.”

Those are amazing numbers yet hunters continue to complain wolves are decimating elk. So why all the whining from hunters? Is it kabuki theater to bolster wolf hating dogma? Is it due to elk changing their browsing behavior, making them harder to hunt because of dispersal by wolves? It’s probably a mix of both but it’s a specious argument that wolves must be ”managed” because of ungulate declines.

Montana and Idaho hunters do your homework!! There are 105, 000 and 166,00 elk in the two states combined, they may be harder to find but they’re out there.



There is one hunter talking truth about elk. He shot the first wolf killed in northern Montana, so I can’t say I’m fond of the guy but having a hunter admit the truth about elk is something to note.

“Do wolves affect elk? Absolutely. But in my opinion, the story of the wolves going into a basin and decimating the elk herd just isn’t true.”…..Dan Pettit

FYI, Dan Pettit killed the first wolf. Do your homework next time.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_e32a1298-a7b0-11de-9dda-001cc4c002e0.html

"Do wolves affect elk? Absolutely. But in my opinion, the story of the wolves going into a basin and decimating the elk herd just isn't true."
The very next day, in fact, one of his hunting partners shot a five-point bull elk in the same area.
The northern Montana area (Wolf Management Unit 1, in state wildlife parlance) has a 41-wolf quota, which totals more than half the statewide quota of 75. Nearly 10,000 permits were sold, and wildlife managers are keeping close tabs on how the hunt is progressing.-Dan Pettit, wolf hunter

first in the northern region

By The Associated Press
Story Published: Sep 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM MDT

(Story Updated: Sep 16, 2009 at 10:24 PM MDT )
HELENA, Mont. - State wildlife officials have received the first report of a wolf killed in the hunting season that began Tuesday.

Multimedia Watch The Video Perry Zumwalt of Roberts shot the wolf Tuesday just north of Yellowstone National Park. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

Montana's gray wolf season began at sunrise Tuesday in three districts in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex and in the Beartooth Wilderness near Cooke City. Wolf hunting in the rest of the state opens on Oct. 25. About 8,800 licenses have been sold, and the state has a quota of 75 wolves.

The Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks say the first reported kill was taken in the hunting district just north of Yellowstone. The agency had no further details on the animal yet.

Save the wolves

there is the recorded wolf kill.
Next years quota is going to be at least doubled,may be as many as 216 wolves.
You do not live here.
Hunters have EVERY RIGHT TO HUNT ON PUBLIC LAND we pay taxes too.
How about you start paying an equal amount for your use of the land to take pictures,and leave all your trash laying around that I pack out every time I go out?

Go top the link posted for RMEF on wolf predation....

Go to the RMEF website and click on News & Media and then bring up the news release titled "RMEF Turns Up The Heat On Pro Wolf Groups". It is a summary of David Allen's summary of the the state of the elk herds in areas where wolves are wiping out the elk and also just what I have said all along, that your side continues to use over all elk numbers.

Wolves may have been brought in to manage elk IN YELLOWSTONE but nowhere else!

The first wolf shot in Montana was taken in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, by a man from Roberts. An out-of-state hunter took the second, in the same wilderness.

Pettit's is the third on record, and the first in the northern region.
That is from your article in the Missoulian,you also neglect to mention the other things Pettit said,He had the wolf mounted,he will continue tom hunt,you took 1 sentence,and try to make it like he is anti-hunting,anti-wolf hunting.He's not.

Here is is last comment..
"It's going to make a beautiful rug, anyway," Pettit said. "It'll be something to remember, that's for sure."

You aren't telling the whole story from any of the info you read...you twist it to fit your narrow views.

Elk will continue to be managed for max hunter harvest,wolves will continue to be hunted,get used to it.
Wild Earth Gaurdians are going to lose their RMNP lawsuit,count on it,the pask,and the state do not want the mess created in and around Yellowstone in Co. The still remember letting the antis have their way with the bears around aspen,then the game dept. had to come in and take care of the problem.
Those of us who live here do not want more wolves,now have a good life,I've wasted far too much time trying to get you to at least read ALL the info,you wont.

I'll think about you when I am wolf hunting this fall.

You do not get it or maybe you are too braindead to get a grasp on reality. Gone are the days of max elk harvest and hunters know that. Now, it will be a lot harder for hunters like you to hunt elk because they are starting to act more like elk. You need to get a grip on reality and start accepting that the days of max elk harvest are over and long gone. Wolves are the elk's top predator. You hunters had your days of max elk harvest and elk hunting, now things are very different and you need to get a grip on reality mountain hunter. Things are not the way they were 10-20 years ago. Wolves are back and they are there to eat elk. Get over it and accept it. Any hunter with common sense knows those days are over and elk hunting will be very different than how it was before wolves got reintroduced. They belong in MT. ID, AND WY. Deal with it.

Wolvesw wre extirminated back east probably close to 200 years or so before they were in the west, where they were already repopulating. Why were the wolves not planted where George lives in Vermont and places where they first were eliminated? If they are truly necessary, it seems like that would have been the way it was done.
Of course if it was one group of selfish people deciding that others should be forced to sacrifice for the pleasure of the first group, then it makes sense to have done it the way it was.

What is there not to get? Women killed in alaska by wolves (one of three in the past few years. Domestic Livestock being killed at the rate of one per day in Montana. Elk herds drastically reduced. The verdict is not completley out yet, will their be any elk left in some areas in another 10 years? Still to be determined. Moose thined by wolves from 1200 (1995) to 114 (2010) in the yellowstone ecosystem. The possibility of losing over 400 million dollars in hunting revenues (of the billion the state brings in for hunting alone) Do other states want this? Nope. Do they want it dictated by people from out of state who do not feel the sting of lost revenue and outdoor activities? Nope. Control the wolf population before it controls you.

Todd, I believe that is coming in the future. You are right, wolves should be put back in all places they once roamed. They don't belong in cities, they belong where the elk are. Wolves are already in Colorado and Utah so they say. Slowly, but surely wolves will be back in most places they used to roam in years to come. Don't think this is pick on ID, WY, AND MT. Wolves will naturally move into all of those places they used to roam on their own. The more wolves, the better.

Oh no you don't there savetehbs, cities have to adjust to the wolves not keep them out. If there is one place that is out of ecological balance it is in the cities. You don't get balance by overwhelming one place so you don't have any of the problems yourself to deal with. You learn to limit the speed and traffic, keep your kids and pets in the house, etc jsut like you want us to do.....actually demand that we do. There is wildlife everywhere, and you all want free roaming buffalo so you can plant them at the same time. Think of the reduction of the carbon footprint when everyone drove slower and you did not have to drive across the country to view the wolves killing other animals, you could see it right where you are.

I am all for starting an effort by the citizens of Montana,Idaho,and Wyoming to live trap wolves,and release them in the suburbs,and parks of the state of Michigan,and the hometowns of all members of Wild Earth Guardians,and all the other save the wolves groups,since they all want them so bad,and most do not live in our area,send all the wolves to them.
Then they can learn first-hand when the wolves start eating all the dogs,cats,exotic animals that are kept in urban areas,then when they have eaten all the wild game,pets,domestic animals,and start attacking people,maybe,just maybe they will understand.
Maybe they could help with gang control in Detroit,NYC,Miami,Charlotte,Richmond,LA,San Diego,Phoenix,Vegas.
They could get the joggers in better shape in the suburbs.
They would make it harder to illegally cross our border with Mexico,help out the Border Patrol.

The hardest part of this plan would be defending the lawsuits brought because the wolves would be stressed by being
captured,and travelling cross country to Michigan,ect.

The days of max elk harvest are almost gone,you are right,because the wolves are eating all the elk.(in areas with high wolf populations)Read the RMEF info,they tell you that wolves ARE decimating SOME elk herds,they have dropped the Moose pop. in the Yellowstone area so low,it most likely will not recover.
1200 the year wolves were introduced (95) to 114 (2010).
Some people just can not comprehend facts when they are faced with them,they continue to use flawed,skewed numbers,and stop reading any info when they see one sentence that supports their views.
RMEF on wolf predation....

Go to the RMEF website and click on News & Media and then bring up the news release titled "RMEF Turns Up The Heat On Pro Wolf Groups". It is a summary of David Allen's summary of the the state of the elk herds in areas where wolves are wiping out the elk and also just what I have said all along, that your side continues to use over all elk numbers.

Ha Ha, spoken like a true environmental nazi. You and ol George are a good pair. Gonna save us all with the wolves, no grazing on public land, no pollution from coal fired power plants, etc. Its rather amuzing to see these terrorists at work. They want to completely take all the improvements in society away from people and start from scratch. How many people they kill in the process does not matter. No common sense, nothing. Yes, someday we will have crop falures, some major cataclismic event and millions, perhaps more than a billion will starve to death or be killed in some other way. When it does happen, they will be sitting back and saying "we told you so" and taking credit that we did not do what we were told by them. Reminds me of the ol bible thumper preachers who get people to give up thier incomes and lives only to make the preacher rich.

bigsky

I don't think we should give any more facts to support our views,
STW does not bother to look up anything we post,just keeps repeating a few sentences of things that do not represent the entire article,or study.
You were right,some kid from the east,never been here,lives in Michigan,where there are like 200 wolves,and 6 million deer,he doesn't get it,never will,goes out to take some pictures,doesn't have any of his livestock being killed,doesn't have his livelihood in jeapordy,sits home,plays online,and watches animal planet,nature,all the other enviro BS.
He is like most of them,doesn't live here,but he feels he should be able to tell us what to do.
Being a flatlander from Michigan,if he got his way,and had no modern technology,he couldn't survive a few days outdoors.

The days of max elk harvest are almost gone,you are right,because the wolves are eating all the elk

You said it, not me. Wolves are not eating all of the elk, that is a lie and you know it. Wolves are not the elk's only predator and there are other factors at work that contribute to elk dying. You clearly don't want to accept this fact mountain hunter. You are nothing more than a wolf hater who only cares about max elk harvest which we both know isn't the case anymore. Elk are still doing good throughout the whole 3 states. Elk changed their behavior clearly and are moving. You take this fact and transform it into the wolves are killing all the elk. I have not seen one study that states that wolves are killing all of the elk.

For the Northern Rockies, independent scientists say the recovery goal should be at least 2,500 to 5,000 wolves in at least three interconnected populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. They say that viable populations should also be established in Colorado, Utah, Oregon and Washington.

Those may be independent scientists....independent of common sense! They were lying in their teeth when they said they wanted 300 wolve and they would only have about a 20% effect on the elk, and a negligible effect on livestock. The one possibility of a good thing is that folks are fed up with the lies, greed, constant demands for more and more, and the huge drain on American dollars. There is reason to hope that the ESA will finally be trashed, and a system of reasonable protections for truly endangered species started.

Todd, why is it you only complain about wolves killing livestock and not other animals? Wolves kill far less livestock than other animals. You claim you are not a hunter, but judging by your comments, you seem to dislike wolves. You have not said one good thing about wokves, so that leads me to believe you do not like them. Do you hate wolves just because they kill other animals to survive? Is that it? Is that any reason to despise an animal? How in the hell can you blame an animal for killing another one to survive?

"save the wolves"

You don't have a clue do you? Wolves were the apex predator and because they kill what ever is there, whether it be livestock or game, they were targeted and removed with the help of our very own US Fish and Wildlife Service who are now forcing the wolves back on us. Here in New Mexico and Arizona they are trying to establish their hybrid government dogs and and several of the packs kill a bigger percentage of livestock than anything. In fact they have already put two ranchers out of business and several more here are on the brink of folding up.

I have an outfitter friend in Wyoming whom the wolves put out of business plus several more that I know of in the three northern wolf states,that have went out and the one from Wyoming told me, "Tom You just as well kiss your butt goodbye when the wolves take hold down there." Yeah sure stw, wolves are not affecting our elk herds. You always sound like a lot of wildlife biologists and always blame things other than predators for wildlife population declines.

Your fairy tale world doesn't really exist anymore and for some good read just look up Dr. Valerius Geist, probably the world's foremost wolf biologist expert and read the history of wolves and where we are at in modern Day World with them. Your side really hates Dr. Geist because he totally and completely blows away the myths you and George are hoping people will believe and even worse, you hope the wolves are listening to you also because they sure do act a whole lot different than you make them out to be.

What really disturbs me is that you say you are from Michigan and George W. is supposed to be in Vermont and you guys try to tell us how it is supposed to be. Like I told you in an earlier post, until you walk in our shoes(live in our woods) you don't have any credibility with Big Sky, Mtn. Hunter, Todd or myself.

Nice try. Valerius Guist is not even a real wolf biologist Tom. He seems to be the only so called expert you wolf haters have on your side and that is why you constantly bring him up because no other wolf expert in the world agrees with your side. Dave Mech is the world 's foremost wolf expert. Dr. Valerius Geist, of Vancouver Island, B.C., is widely acknowledged as a preeminent authority on the biology, behavior, and social dynamics of elk, moose, bighorn sheep and other wild ungulates worldwide. He is also a hunter and we all know how hunters despise wolves. Tom, you don't get it, where someone lives is irrevelant. The same views I have now, I would have even if I was living in MT, WY, OR ID. I would treasure living with wolves. You see, you are an outfitter and when you fail to provide for your clients (I doubt you have very many), you need something to blame, you use predators as a scapegoat because you are too embarassed to admit you failed at providing for your clients. Outiftters have no credibility what so ever. Tom, your side uses anti-wolf hysteria. Dave Mech has much more credibility than Guist. You would be a fool to think otherwise.

Uhhh, save the bs, you do realize that Dr. David Mech also was one of the 10 biologists who stated the Wyoming management plan was biologically sound don't you? He stated 2 years ago that the wolves should be delisted as he felt there were probably 3000 in actualy fact even though they aren't all counted. In other words he doesn't agree with much that is being done at present.

Where is your proof that Mech said that? The Wyoming management plan is terrible wildllife management. Federal officials have deemed Wyoming's wolf management plan inadequate. You must be getting your info from saveelk.com Todd. Wolves are not vermin and should never be allowed to be shot on sight just so hunters can get more elk opportunities. You people are a sad bunch. You claim you love wildlife, but all you do is kill it. You wanna shoot predators so that you can hunt the elk for yourselves. Todd, don't try to hide it, I know you are a wolf hater and most likely a hunter as well even though you denied it. No sense in hiding it anymore wolf hater. Most people who speak about wolves are either hunters or those that support wolves or ranchers.


If the wolf is to survive, the wolf haters must be outnumbered. They must be outshouted, out financed, and out voted. Their narrow and biased attitude must be outweighed by an attitude based on an understanding of natural processes." -L. David Mech

Plenty of wolves in Canada and Alaska. No need to have them here at all. However, since they are here, they must be managed. PEOPLE live here now. I read a bunch about Mr. Mech. Interesting guy. Runs a 100 mile mink trapping line in Minnesota, quite an outdoorsman also. Probably knows more about wolves than most people, no doubt, but he also advocate hunting wolves. We don't want 90-120 pound wolves that are not afraid of people. Otherwise, well will have many more instances of people being attacked, livestock destroyed, livihoods ruined.

113 bidders from 22 states braved snow showers and chilly winds to participate in the 43rd annual Jackson District Boy Scout Antler Auction. Because of the mild winter, only about half of the traditional winter herd on the National Elk Refuge shed their antlers on refuge land, leaving the sale with only 5564 pounds to auction off. That, says organizer Cliff Kirkpatrick, meant less money for the project. Altogether, the auction yielded slightly more than $46-thousand dollars for habitat enhancement on the refuge – that’s about half of last year’s total. Among the highlights of the sale were one matched pair that sold for a total of $1863.00 and a single buyer who made a total of $7135.00 in purchases at the sale.

(Jackson Hole Radio News Photo)


i wonder why???????? hmmmmmmm

"save the wolves"

My hunters do very well thank you.

Valerius Geist has a lot of history and much insight into the working of wolves and I rate him way over your old buddy Mech. You may be enlightened if you read some of his findings, but I doubt you or your pro wolf can acknowledge the real truth.

Take Roy McBride and Dennis Parker for instance, they know more about the Mexican Gray Wolves than all of the other so called wolf scientists/experts put together but yet were ignored and belittled by the pro wolfers so that they could illegally dump their government hybrid dogs into the southwest. what a travesty of justice. We call it Government Sponsored Terrorism. It is nothing more and nothing less. They change the rules as they go and meanwhile the citizens living here are suffering the consequences, whether they be hunters, business owners, pet owners, people trying to rear their children here and all people of all walks of life. You and your ilk are doing everything you can to change the landscape and get rid of any humans in your way.

Like has been said so many times in this thread, wolves can be here but have to be managed, whether you like it or not. Those of us who live here are on the front lines and we are in a battle for our very lives and future and people like you don't give a damn about humanity, only your selfish ignorant desires.

Keep in mind, also Tom, that whatever "rules" they say, they will change if they become established. It will start with 10 breeding pairs, then 50, then 100. Then "wolf habitat" will be increased to every part of New Mexico and Arizona, except the major cities. Then they will work on Texas and California. We are going though that now. More and more wolves. To heck with peoples livihoods, elk numbers, moose, mountain sheep, etc. Hundreds, to thousands.....nothing left but wolves...

Tom, you rate him over Mech because he has a negative attitude toward wolves, just like you. Mech has 50 years of experience working with wolves, now tell me clever one, how many does Guist have? That's what I thought, thank you.

What Dr. Mech said about delising:

"But some wolf experts say managing wolves is not so simple. David Mech, a University of Minnesota researcher considered one of the world's leading experts on wolf behavior, predicted populations in the Northern Rockies could hold steady or keep expanding, even with hunting permitted, if the wily animals prove too smart for hunters.

Since reintroduction, wolf numbers have increased 20% to 30% a year as the animals thrived in a habitat flush with elk, moose and other prey. Even where entire packs were taken out to curb livestock kills, new packs have quickly filled the gap."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2007-11-24-gray-wolf-endangered_N.htm

More overall info on how courts managed to throw out the rule that experimental animals coudl not be put where they could kill any remaining natives:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Gray_wolves_under_the_Endangered_Species_Act:_Distinct_population_segments_and_experimental_populations

Actually, Roy McBride is definitely a pro wolf pro people person. He actually sees both sides of the controvery, something mech still has trouble with. Your problems in Arizona will be magnified beyond belief if those wolves ever get established. You have alot more small operators, a few losses can really hurt a family. Roy sees that also. The ultimate cry of the prowolfers is to take the people off the land. They are now trying to buy up grazing leeses and have even sued to get most of Arizona declaired wolf terriortory, driving people off the land, and curtailing hunting in any form. The Apache nation themselves have a hefty economic boom going on guiding elk hunting on their reservation.

Geist has many years of actual hands on experience as well as volumes of research on the history of wolves and if you would read some of his writings you mind start to see why wolves are wolves and what and how they actually live. Geist was a wolf lover for many years until he lived with them and finally saw the reality of wolves being wolves. No matter what or how you revere Mech, nothing will change the truth and reality of what Geist has uncovered and witnessed.

On the other hand Mech has a flawed positive bias towards wolves as is the case with so many biologists, whom fall in love with the species they study.

Aldo Leopold was a hunter also so I suppose that makes him a lesser authority.

We are so tired of hearing the lies and false rhetoric from the so called top scientists such as Dr. Paul Paquet and The Turner Foundation so called scientist, biologist Michael K. Phillips, whom are the lead propagandists for the Mexican Gray Wolf Program. Now along comes George and you, who try your darnedest using your best thought out scientific theories and blather, but I have been very involved in the processes and see first hand what your side is trying to do. But then again as I said earlier on in this thread, there is not any use in trying to argue facts to you and the rest of the real radical zealots in the wolf debate.

Dr. Paul Paquet is perhaps the most disgusting liar of the whole bunch except for Michael Robinson (so called wolf expert) of the Center For Biological Diversity. These guys will stop at nothing and I mean nothing to bully and perpetrate their venom on the unsuspecting and unknowing citizenry. I have personally met and sat along side Dr. Paquet in the 3 year review of the Mexican Gray Wolf program a few years ago. I see Michael Robinson way more than I would like and he is an absolute radical and a smooth talking one at that. He gets a lot of press and his organization is very well funded and they with them using the courts are having a hey day with the wolf and the endangered species program. What a bunch of real demons in our midst. Totally unabashed human haters.

No "save the wolves" you are no better than the above so called scientists in that you seem to stoop at nothing to further your flawed views on the people here who have to actually live with the wolves. Come down and live with these human habituated, hybrid government dogs for awhile. Actually quite a travesty of justice for these poor pen raised wolves that they have been dumping on us for the last 10 years. I really feel sorry for the folks up in ID, MT and WY because those wild Canadian wolves really took off and prospered beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

The sooner more big game outfitters, go out of business, the better. They can blame it on wolves, but maybe society as a whole isn't that interested in spending a vacation in the pursuit of killing something like a "trophy" bear lured in by a pile of garbage; a mountain lion that is run by hounds, treed, tormented by the outfitter and his dudes shooting it with a camera, before they shoot it dead with a rifle, or a "trophy" bull elk that is fooled by using an elk bugle.

Boycott big game outfitters and tell your friends and family to do the same. These same outfitters usually have guided trips for hiking, fishing or camping.

Tom and Mech has not had any hands on experience with wolves? Come on, stop denying the obvious. You only like Guist simply because you like that he has a negative attitude about wolves. I have never heard him say one good thing about wolves, but I am sure that him being a hunter has something to do with that given the fact that hunters do not like predators who hunt the same prey animals they do. Guist is not a wolf expert. Get in touch with him and ask him how many wolves he collared in his lifetime. Mech's 50 years working with wolves gives him much more credibility than Guist. Guist is known for his studies of ungulates like mountain sheep, elk and mule deer. I have no idea where you get that he is a wolf biologist. You simply like the guy and claim he's an expert on wolves when he's not just because he has negative feelings about wolves just like you and you know that is the truth.

Owl Creek, you are right. Outiftters care nothing for wildlife. They would wipe out all of the predators if they could because all people like Tom care about is having max elk harvest for hunters like himself and providing elk to clients that pay him. When he fails to provide his clients, he blames his failure to provide on predators because he is too much of a wuss to accept responsibility for his own failures.

Interesting, there are hunters who don't even like big game outfitters because some outfitters act like they own "their area". You better not intrude or it will be made clear, you are not welcome If you dare set up camp where they have their permit, even if it's a couple of miles away, you might end up missing some items or have them damaged. Outfitters also put out salt to attract big games. Check out big game outfits on the internet - 1000's of dead photos of wildlife and grinning fools holding them, rifle slung across their "trophy". Too bad wolves, bear, lions & other wildlife can't shoot back.

Yes, we definitely need to reduce NW Wyoming outfitter numbers .

Back in March , I FOIA'd the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton Forests for maps of the permitted outfitter camps located east and just south of Yellowstone Park in the Absaroka Range west of my town of Cody WY, and they complied quickly. I now have Google Earth maps pinpointing these camps in the upper Clarks Fork , Sunlight Basin-Crandall, both forks of the Shoshone River, the Thorofare, Greybull-Wood River, the northerly drainages of the Wind River , and the upper Snake River and upper Yellowstone River headwaters.

It came to 73 camps. What you don;t see are the bootleggers and renegade outfitters, which exacerbates what I'm about to say

It's obvious when you look at that number of camps , they cannot collectively be sustained , especially in areas that are going more and more to Limited Quota elk hunts and more anterless attrition late season hunts. Yet every one of these outfitters is trying to sell a trophy bull. They all hunt during the rut ( bad!) and take their fill off the very top of the gene pool. Over time this has distorted the herd balance mightily . In my lifetime.

I spent about 20 years in and out of high country elk camps in this area as a guide , camp tender , and packer. What learned about outfitters is they are nearly 90 percent outlaw and 98 percent liars. It was a nefarious business then , and anecdotally I know it to be worse now , if that's even possible. A great deal of the shenanigans and outlaw hunting of elk that occurs is due to lack of backcountry enforcement and adult supervision. The FS rangers and WyGF game wardens cannot be everywhere at once. US Fish and Wildlife is way short of agents...one in Cody , one in Lander or Jackson. Lesser " incidents" aren't even investigated. Only a tiny percentage of violators are apprehended. Outfitters--- permitted or renegade--- get away with almost everything most of the time.

Few of the contemporary outfitting businesses are making it financially. There are too few nonresident hunters drawing licenses in Wyoming these days , too many outfitters trying to pimp the successful applicants, and fewer possibilties to fill the tags when they do. The thrill of the hunt is not enough. They want to take shots at big bulls, so they end up in Colorado which has three times the elk population as Wyoming, or in some other states that would surprise you . Who knew that Missouri and Tennessee had elk hunting ?

I also have to say in no uncertain terms that Wyoming Game and Fish has done a poor job of managing the elk herds and the elk hunts for same in my region. Due to the fact the term " Ecology " is not in G & F's vernacular, they egregiously attempt to manage elk as though they were a totally sustainable resource that replenishes from year to year and can always be assured of a high plateau baseline crop of elk numbers to sustain high hunting pressure. Which is ridiculous. What Rocky Mountain Elk, Safari Club , the Outfitter guild and everyone else have NEVER grasped is that ungulate herd populations fluctuate over a very wide range. It is necessary for elk herds to almost totally crash every few decades to give the habitat a rest. The elk that do survive are the smarter, stronger, beter adapted elk that will return to you a fine damn herd of huntable elk ...in 15 years. But when bad winters or other natural forces cause a particular elk herd to lose 30-50 eprcent of its count, it still takes ten years to rebuild from that , But that ten years never comes. Hunting pressure remains high ; too many trophy bulls get taken.

Man is a lousy game manager, and does not manage wildlife ecologically at all. Now what we have in northwest Wyoming is a drought that exceeds the Dust Bowl years and some serious nutrition issues. With growing Grizzly numbers and opportunistic wolves to take advantage of stressed elka dn low birth rates, the entire elk hunting picture is n a downward spiral from the comemrcial hunters perspective.

So we need to seriously reduce outifitter numbers as well. For the benefit of the elk and the long term game plan.

That's my considered opinion

And now, my own fireball rhetorical comment about it:
The new OPEC:
Outfitters
Pimping
Elk
Constantly

####

I can't disagree with much you said, Dewey. I think if you have to many outfitters in the woods in Wyoming, that is the state fish and game dept. problem for letting that happen. In Montana, they are designated certain areas and only one outfitter per area of public land as far as I know. Had an uncle that outfitted and we use to help him out once in awhile packing and such. I was never a guide. Of course, they raise havoc with private lands, buying up leases and such, so I guess you have a point. The other side of the argument is the economics of elk hunting. Sure, I don't have much love for guides, but I don't mind a local making of buck off of guiding. Course, it really does not matter now. With the game decreasing at an exponential rate, the only guys hunting will be the poachers.....

Dewewy said
" Now what we have in northwest Wyoming is a drought that exceeds the Dust Bowl years and some serious nutrition issues."

You might want to step outside a little. It seems to have eased a little with about an inch or more of rain in the last few days. That being said, this is high desert and we are always in drought to one extent or another. Elk have managed just fine for ever and ever until they hauled in a whole lotta wolves and decided as long as a rancher or hunter continued to exist we need more and more. Why if drought is impacting the elk is it not impacting the buffalo?
Wolves seem to have little impact on buffalo, consequently neither does the drought evidentlly. I guess it only impacts the animals that wolves prey heavily on like elk and moose.

"owl creek", "save the wolves" and "Dewey",

Only your bias and ignorance shine through. You haven't a clue to my likes or dislikes of wildlife, my ethics and most of my colleagues. I will give you however that there are a fair number of crooks in the business but that doesn't speak for the majority that are ethical and scrupulous business men. This is true in any business and what is it you guys do and what makes your crap not stink and what gives you the right to judge someone whom you have not a clue about? If all of us are so bad why or how can we stay in business? We are service providers and as long as there is demand for hunting and outfitted trips of any kind there will be someone there to provide for them. It is a huge industry (hunting and outdoor recreation) and will survive just fine with standard , professional and ethical business practices and your types will continue to be ignored now and into the future.

To say that man cannot manage wildlife is totally absurd. All one has to do is look at the past history and how hunting has and is playing a very large part in healthy wildlife. You guys are so far out in left field it makes common sense and science look like a foreign subject to you guys. The sh really got deep the last few posts.

Klumker - I was referring to outfitters in general. All one has to do is visit big game websites and see what interest big game outfitters have in wildlife - KILLING. Also, there's often mention about having clients killing coyotes for fun. Attend any state wildlife agency big game meeting and one will witness the "me first" attitude of big game outfitters. Wolves are their latest scapegoat. Boycott big game outfitters.

Well, Owl Creek, the boycotting of outfitters is not gonna happen, period. Obviously, their clients are not from the likes of you or me, or not usually. I remember my uncle commenting on fellas who came up to hunt, fellas like us, who did not know the area, but enjoyed hunting. They would save for years for one once in a lifetime elk hunt in Montana and hire a guide like uncle. It was those kinda guys that kept uncle in the business. Bad apples for clients? Yep, some of those to. Guys who smoked 4 packs and day and could not walk 100 yards. Guys who were mad about going out for five days and not seeing an elk, guys who could not walk without making enough noise to wake the dead. Yea, lotta negatives to. Some baby sitting for sure. I really enjoy getting out with my kids and being able to FIND a place to hunt. I know there is a problem with leasing and such going on for the common resident, but private property is private, regardless. Most of the guys that I know that lease land do it for the money no doubt. Farming or ranching is a tough business, and if they can get a little extra who am I to judge?

"owl creek"

Your drivel continues. There is much more than just killing in any hunting situation. For many of my hunters killing is secondary. Killing is a fact of life in any sense, form or fashion. Hunting is deeply ingrained into human's psyche and the human race developed as meat eaters, killing to survive. It is basic survival. Somewhere down through the ages your core being has faded into a distant memory. For a big segment of society it is still burning brightly. Don't tell us how to live and we darned sure don't care how you exist. As long as you are boycotting maybe you can do the same with Arizona. What a shame, outsiders trying to tell Arizona residents what is best for them and they (outsiders) are not being directly affected. We don't even hunt south of I-10 in Arizona anymore, not because of the common wetbacks but because of the dangerous drug runner cartels.

In my way of life fair chase is the way and I don't hunt over baits or in the prime rut or any of the other slanders you try to lay on me. I however don't fault you or your beliefs but would like to have a two way street. After all everybody is different and for your holier than thou attitude it says a whole lot about you. I'm glad you are so darned perfect.

Todd/ Klumker--- Sorry , but have to disagree with your last missive. I have done a lot of research on wildlife from Pre-Columbian times to the Present , especially so-called " game" animals of the American West and particular the herds in my Absaroka Range-northwest Wyoming region. It's an extensive subject and much is unknowable due to know recordation. But much also comes through unambiguously, especially since the mid-1800's

One really fine source you would find good reading is Osborne Russell's 'Journal of a Trapper', still in print 9 http://www.narrativepress.com , $ 15.00 ) Russell was one of only two mountain men from the Fur Trapper era who could write legibly. He kept a diary for the 9 years he worked the Rockies, 1834-1843. He was in the company of Jim Bridger early on , if that means anything to you. Russell left behind some sharp accounts of the wild game situation. I have highlghted several of his accounts in my copy. In 1836 Russell's party crossed over from the Wind river to the South Fork of the Shoshone via the DuNoir , and camped near one of my very favorite places in the mountains, Bliss Meadows . When Russell was there he wrote about gazing the high cliffs and Shoshone Plateau from a single vantage and seeing THOUSANDS of mountain sheep. About 1500 Bighorns in one bunch.

The Bighorn sheep was very nearly extincted in the middle Rockies by the incursion of massive numbers of domestic sheep trailed up from Utah in the 1870's, displacing the bighorns and giving them diseases they had no immunity for. In fact, you owe the entire National Forest Service system to one Archibald A. Anderson who was so disgusted with the the sheep invasion he persuaded Pres. Harrison and Congress to establish the Yellowstone Timberland Reserve ( now the Shoshone Forest ) to eliminate the rampant domestic sheep destroying the graze and range of the native wildlife.

Elk in the middle Rockies were also nearly extincted by uncontroled Market Hunters. Vast amounts of unregulated hunting nearly exterminated the elk in the 1870-1890 period. That was Man at his lowest and worst . Of course we all know the saga of the 60 million American Bison who died of gunfire, also the result of uncontroled hunting. Six of the seven subspecies of Grizzly bear were exterminated in the Lower 48 states.

What elk and ungulates the market hunters and scabs didn't kill outright , the insurgency of domestic livestock threatened to usurp the graze right out from under them.

Two other man-caused forces had severe impacs on game ehrds...the suppression of natura forest fires, and elimination of apex predators , both of which cascaded negatively through the ecology, and whose effects we still deal with , since 140 years is not near long enough to restore whole ecosystems, if that is even possible in this era of unnatural climate change.

Finally , I have to say for all the success that conservation movements and regulated hunting programs claim in restoring game herds to adequate sustainable numbers for annual hunts, it is largely a myth that Man is a primary force in wildland and wildlife ecology . People still have far more negative effect on Rocky Mountain game herds than positive , when viewed on the long time scale and equivocating to landscape potential , as distressed as that may be in our times.

You may continue to believe that you and yours Great White Hunters have been a positive force in wildlife conservation , but history says otherwise in the larger picture. There have of course been some finitely focussed success stories and localized restoration of herds to substantial levels. But without Wolves and other apex predators, those successes are false positives, not actually indicative of longterm conservation outcome.

The belief that conservation of wild animals by sportsmen has been a success story is a Great White Lie. For many reasons.

Not until you and yours learn to do as Also Leopold wrote, to " think like a mountain " will you ever see through to that.

By the way , Osborne Russell had very little to say about Wolves, except in passing. They were not much of an issue with him and certainly not the waylayers of the game. They avoided men then , as they mostly do now.

Bottom Line: we should NEVER have eliminated the Wolf from the Rockies.

p.s. The Canadian wolves released in Yellowstone were selected because of their propensity and skill in coexisting with elk herds. They never were intended to manage down Bison in Yellowstone. Only one pack of wolves, the Mollies of Yellowstone's central plateau country , even bothers to hunt Bison at all , except opportunistically those Bison who are weak or crippled or otherwise easily taken. Wolves are not nearly the successful killer most presume they are...a wolf or even a pack of them has a success ratio of 10-20 percent of each attempted kill. Usually less. But they persevere. However, it's damn tough to kill a Bison. It takes a lot of wolves working cooperatively to do that, 12 or more , and they get the crap kicked out of them by Bison.

p.p.s to Todd. You obviously don't know the difference between weather and climate/drought cycles. Yes it is raining in Cody today . We normally get 45 percent of our annual moisture , including snowmelt, in the month of May every year in the lower country. One month yields half the moisture . But the rainfall patterns have altered in recent years, just not today . Wise up.

By the way , if you think you know the first thing about elk , why was that lone cow Elk , very pregnant, running across the 4-lane by the Dairy Queen last Thursday ? I've lived in Cody all my life and that is the first time I know that an elk ever cruised the neighborhoods , ever.

You gonna blame THAT on wolves, too ?

To Save the wolves...

readf it,all of it.....


RMEF on wolf predation....

Go to the RMEF website and click on News & Media and then bring up the news release titled "RMEF Turns Up The Heat On Pro Wolf Groups". It is a summary of David Allen's summary of the the state of the elk herds in areas where wolves are wiping out the elk and also just what I have said all along, that your side continues to use over all elk numbers.

Mountain hunter, I don't look at certain areas, but as I said, elk in certain areas will go up and down, this is natural and there is nothing wrong with that, get over it. I told you already, elk have changed their behavior and max elk harvest for hunters is gone. It is a thing of the past and if you don't believe me, ask any elk hunter from MT, ID, OR WY. You will never have max elk harvest again because wolves and mt. lions and bears also eat elk in case you didn't know. I look at the overall elk population in the whole state and elk are doing just fine throughout the whole state. If you are angry that elk herds are doing poorly in certain areas, find somewhere else to hunt elk because complaining is a complete waste of time. Now, it will be much harder for you to hunt an elk, get to it and put in the hard work and maybe sometime down the link, you will be successful in getting your elk.

More drivel...love it.


I talked to 3 different game wardens the past few days and they all said they'd have a hard time citing someone for shooting wolves illegally unless it was blatant and there were witnesses.

So if the game wardens won't stop wolf killings then who will??? Seems like the feds are fed up with the wolf nonsense.

Looks like it's open season on wolves whether or not they open up the quotas.

Smokem if ya gottem boyzzz.

Ok Dewey, you sound like a reasonable guy who obviously had read a bit about the history of game in our three state area. Keep in mind that back then PEOPLE came to the mountains for a new life and to survive and make a buck. They knew nothing about conservation. I would also bet that many of the mountain sheep were killed by rifles more so than the diseases, but sheep diseases probably flinished alot of them off. All speculation, regardless. I will have to read Russels book. The past aside. To say that these wolves were "selected" is ridiculous. You are looking at a wolf that is use to killed moose that are far larger than our variety of moose. The "proof" is in the killing itself. 1995, 1200 moose in YNP, 2010, 114. Will there be moose in YNP in another 10 years? Its looks doubtful. If there was any selection going on, maybe, possibly, they could have brought wolves from Minnesota? Appears those wolves are smaller, better suited for our environment. If you say these wolves are coexisting with our elk, then why the massive slaughter? Economics aside (and we should not do that, regardless of what you think, MAN is in the equation now), how far will the elk numbers plummet? Well, as a biologists would think, wolf numbers will plummet when the prey is diminished to the point where there is nothing to eat. Basically, they starve to death, or kill each other, make larger territories to survive, etc. Little prey, fewer wolves. So if this occurs, wolves will range out farther to find new prey. Of course, that means alot more cattle, sheep, horses, and dogs will be eaten. I have heard people like you state that a big reason the wolves were released in yellowstone was to control the elk population and the BISON also. The bison did not pan out.
*Say what you will, lie about it, but those hunter dollars made all the difference for animals, in particular, elk, thoughout the last 50 years. The big killer of elk before wolves was caused by severe winters, and lack of wintering grounds. Hunting funds bought more than a few wintering grounds, paid ranchers for losses, paid for studies to determine how best to manage elk. While people like yourself (unless you are a hunter) paid nothing, and still pay nothing. There would be little game here without hunting and probably more important, farming and ranching which gives these critters a food source in the winter.
*Climatic conditions do indeed knock elk numbers down from time to time, but we have not seen anything like what we are witnessing now with wolves.
Common sense is apparently not a driving force with you people. You keep forgetting the fact that PEOPLE now live here and are in the equation. Yes, we had elk, moose, deer, antelope and PEOPLE living here before. Now we have wolves. They can, and will be managed, just like all the rest.

Do hunters really care?
It is ludicrous to believe that someone who actively sets out to kill a healthy animal for fun, trophy or profit really cares about wild animals specifically or nature in general. Photographs of smiling hunters posing with their dead victims hardly reflect the kind of “caring” that most normal people relate to. If hunters are the “true” conservationists they claim to be, and really do care about animals, they would pursue every humane, non-lethal possibility or means of caring for wild animals and the environment. Instead, their solution to any perceived problem with animals is to reach for the gun. Why is it that hunters, as so-called conservationists, are interested only in those animals that are most attractive as trophies, most enjoyable to eat or most “challenging” to hunt?
Do hunters pay for conservation?
Killing wild animals is big business, and there are lots of people who make a lot of money out of it. Those who encourage and participate in hunting form part of a multi-million Rand industry that will fight to its last breath to stay in business.
Manufacturers and marketers of hunting gear and clothing, guns and ammunition, bows and arrows, camping equipment and much more have a vested interest in promoting hunting as a good, healthy outdoor sport for the whole family. The more hunters out there killing, the more they sell.

Game ranchers and provincial and national conservation authorities generate millions of Rands annually by selling wild animals to private game farmers where hunters pay exorbitant fees to kill them for fun, trophy or meat.

As with every other type of institutionalised animal abuse, hunting will not easily be abolished in spite of relentless pressure from animal rightists. What makes hunting relatively easy to defend is that the hunters have spread a false message that it is they who fund conservation, and that were it not for them, most conservation areas currently in private ownership would convert to agricultural land with the total loss of the wildlife at present on that land. This implies, firstly, that the only justification for maintaining wild animals on the land is to generate funds from hunting, and, secondly, that all land which is not profitable game ranching land must automatically be taken over by environmentally destructive agriculture. This is absolute nonsense.

Conservation and the protection of wild animals must be funded from ethically acceptable sources, including a conservation levy on all profits from the sale of goods or services which have their origin in any natural resource. Wildlife and environment conservation must not be abandoned to an animal-unfriendly system that uses profit to justify the killing of healthy, defenseless animals. By allowing hunters to make the claim that they “pay for conservation”, human society is failing in its responsibility to wildlife. The fate of wild animals has literally been abandoned into the hands of killers.

Do hunters fulfil the role of predator?
Definitely not. Hunters will not miss out on any opportunity to cover themselves in glory, even to the point of claiming the role of natural predator in those areas where natural predators have been eradicated or do not occur.
But as so-called predator, the hunter selects only the finest specimens to kill. This is in direct contradiction of the role of true predators, who hunt the old, disabled and unwary and in so doing maintain the health of the populations. Predators too old, disabled or incompetent are also preyed on, but not by human hunters who only want healthy specimens in the prime of life.

The sustained killing of prime specimens of any population or species leads to debilitation of the gene pool and can hasten the rate at which that population or species becomes endangered or even extinct. No natural predator would act in this manner unless in very unnatural and exceptional circumstances. Natural and balanced predator/prey relationships lead to healthy populations of both the prey and the predator species.

careful Dewey,
you have kicked over a rock and they will all scatter.....

You call it abuse, saver of wolfies. I call it economics. Many, many more people are involved in this issue than the few of your types can even imagine. Yes, it is big business. Business which puts people to work. Clothing, outdoor gear, rifles, jobs for fish and game, biologists, ranching leeses for hunting, private game management, you name it. This is why we have the numbers of elk, deer, moose that we now have. You can't see your nose in front of your face. Prime specimens for hunting? yea, right. Shows you have never hunted. That may be occuring on some private ranches, but most guys I know hunt for meat. You have a cow elk tag, you don't go out and look over 100s of animals and pick one. You shoot the first one you see. In a way, that would be the dumbest one....hmmm...little natural selection going on here? Your ridiculous statements are just that, ridiculous. It would take many generations to see a change in the elk gene pool in the wild, much less deer or moose. When it comes to horn growth (thats what you think) obviously we would have seen some change by now if there was link between "shooting the big one" and horn growth. Horn growth has got to be related to reproduction. Bigger horns, better chance of mating. No other reason that I can see. Most hunters do not collect the biggest and best, they get the slow and old. I can tell you this greenboy. The tax payers I know are not gonna anti up any moneys to save your species. Hunters will though. Course, with the wolves around, in many areas some speices may go extinct. You cannot regulate wolf hunting without culling some of them.

Can anyone here name a single species that was extincted by predators in its habitat ?

What carnivore has extirpated what herbivore anywhere , other than Man ?

By Dewey

Wait a few years and you will be able to say that wolves exterminated moose in Yellowstone.

The reason no one carnivore can exterminate any one herbivore is because of of different populations of each in different areas,when predators run out of prey they used to be able to move,now that doesn't happen because man has destroyed their habitat,and changed the balance in ecosystems,we created an environment more friendly to grazing animals because we raise them for food,that is why we got rid of wolves in populated areas.
Now that the eco-terrorists brought the wolf back,we are left to clean up the mess.
If they lived here,they would have a very different opinion,just like down in Aspen the enviros wanted bears left alone,got their way,than had to call in fish and game to rid the area of excess bears damaging property,killing pets,ect.
Same thing would be done with the wolves if they all lived here.

Save the Wolves is a flatlander from Michigan,no credibility whatsoever here.

I guess the wolf proponents beleive that wolves are so smart, they count the remaining prey and make sure they don't kill too much. This article explains some of the truth about wolf predation.

Ooops, here si the article:
http://westinstenv.org/wibio/2010/01/18/wolf-predation-more-bad-news/

Nice dodge, Mountain Hunter, but you still didn't name an instance of a natural extinction of a species by a predator in its habitat . You dodged the question , then throw out the fantastical hypothetical that wolves will surely extinct the Moose some years from now. And you seem certain that will happen .

Wrong. I'm not buying that line at all. Be careful about revealing any more of your appalling lack of science knowledge.

Nearly every known case of species going extinct by predation have been the result of man tampering with the habitat. Mainly by introducing alien species that should not have been there and don't belong there, but we put them there. Think Brown tree snakes eating all the birds on Guam , for instance. They arrived there on the island of No Snakes by hitching a ride in the wheel wells of military aircraft.

There are numerous cases of unnatural extinctions vectored by man-caused agents. But you CANNOT find a single instance of the natural predator-prey relationship resulting in the extinction of either the predator or the prey, because there aren't any. Only the unnatural.

EXCEPT--- that species known as Homo sapiens has extincted many animal species by preying on them . That's us.

I say this because wolves are not unnatural. They belong on the Rocky Mountain landscapes, comingled with elk herds , moose, and all the other species. I cannot say the same for alien exotic species like Herefords, Angus, Charolais, Simmental , Rambouillet , Moreno, Hempshire, or the men who brung 'em.....

Dewey, long before you were thinking of that, think of this. 99.5% of all species that ever lived on the planet are now extinct. 99.4% of those were not caused by man. Cut the crap on chopping people up about education. It really makes you look dumb. Now, in the last 200 or so years, yep, lots of extinctions caused by man. I like the twist on invasive species. Might we apply that to WOLVES? Non native subspeces that has been preying on VERY LARGE MOOSE for thousands of years and they get dumped into our backyards with smaller moose and elk? You still miss the point. MAN, MAN, MAN lives here now. You cannot just let "nature be nature". Thats the biggest problem you people have, and thats why you won't get your way. I hope ol judge malloy grants hunting for the wolves sake. Without it, there is gonna be alotta people out gunning for wolves, and I am afraid they won't stop with guns either.

Mt. hunter, you have no credibility because you are a hunter and you have a bias against wolves simply because they are your competition. They are much more efficient hunters than a hunter like yourself. All you care about is max elk harvest and you admitted that basically. Wolves are not responsible for the extinction of any animals, but I can't say the same for homosapiens. That is where you are dead wrong mt. hunter, if I lived in MT, I am 100% certain I would have the same opinions and views as I do now. You see, unlike you, some understand that wolves have to kill in order to survive. I don't think you can grasp this easy concept. Again and again, people like you show your true colors and all you care about is max elk harvest. Mt, hunter, what's the matter, don't want to answer dewey's question huh?

Here is the court copy of the testimony of Dr. David Mech on delisting the wolves, which he adamantly supported.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/esa/court/dMech.pdf

Animals may also become extinct through direct destruction. This includes the hunting and capturing of animals. Man has always hunted and killed wildlife but when early humans lived more in harmony with nature, they killed animals for essential food and clothing. When firearms were invented mass destruction of species was possible. Animals have been, and still are, killed for meat, clothing,medicines, feathers, eggs, trophies, tourist souvenirs - and sometimes just for amusement. Some species are still captured in the wild for the live pet trade, even though their numbers are dwindling.

The extinction of at least 500 species of animals has been caused by man, most of them in this century. Today there are about 5,000 endangered animals and at least one species dies out every year. There are probably many more which become extinct without anyone knowing.

It is well know thaty homosapiens are responsible for many extinctions on some animal species, but I have found nothing to suggest that wolves are responsible for any kind of extinction. This wolves are going to kill all of the elk garbage is pure nonsense. If they were capable of making elk go extinct, why didn't they do it thousands and thousands of years ago when wolves roamed in much larger #s than today? That's what I thought Todd and Mt. hunter.

Bigsky, where is your proof that wolves are non native animals? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? It appears not.

The usual dribble from "save the wolfies". Hmmm, proof. How about the fact that in 10 years their may be no moose left in YNP? Jim Beers just gave a talk on this subject in Cody, Wyoming last week. He is a retired wildlife biologist. Anyone who has taken a zoology class knows that animals get larger (as a species) as you move farther north. Look at deer, for example. Florida keys deer and the koos whitetail in arizona are tiny in comparison to Montana deer. Same species, different habitats. So why not with wolves? In particular, since canadian moose are much larger than our moose (shirus, I think), why would these woulves who are use to a larger prey species not find it easier to kill smaller moose? Save the wolfies, you are an idiot anyway. Don't know why I bother. In fact, I won't.

Hey Todd, read the article. Good stuff. Thanks for sharing. In fact, I ran it off.....I will be spending two weeks backpacking (with a dog, hmmmm) through a bunch of new "wolf territory" or so they tell me in July. Will see how it works out....

"save the wolves" and "Dewey"

Try reading Todd's link above on " wolf predation more bad news". It speaks of the near extinction of species brought about by wolves.

When the ungulate prey base numbers are stressed by weather habitat, poaching or whatever, then predators have a huge effect. take the Merriam elk in the southwest, they were extirpated from the wild with the final nail in their coffin being the very short few years of meat hunters in the late 1800's and dearly 1900's. Their numbers were evidently at very low levels even before the Europeans settled here. Wolves were very prevalent here in those days and to read the stories of the early day settlers wolves were a formidable obstacle to settling this area. Grizzlies were also a huge problem for the settlers. Wildlife numbers ebb and flow and modern day man has changed the equation.

"save the wolves" drop your stupid argument that hunters care nothing about wildlife and we are only biased against wolves. You have completely worn out your stupid arguments against hunters. Even most modern day hunters are probably more in tune and love all forms of wildlife and the out of doors more than you utopianists. Your hatred is against mankind and modern day humanity, it would seem.

I personally think we can all live together but it will take give and take on both sides and it seems your side doesn't want to give, only to try and morph humanity into something other than what we have naturally developed into over the eons of time.

Big Sky - Jim Beers is a sour, angry former USFWS employee who, in his career, disliked anyone that he considered a bunny-hugger.

Now, he's taking his anger out on wolves, and finding that he has an audience of poorly educated, predator hating rednecks. He's the new Ron Gillett, but with a biology degree. Beers is what is called a "bio prostitute". Claiming his biology degree to spew hate against wolves and against those who happen to like wolves, and who understand their roll.

Big Sky - you talk so big, but have you considered using spell checker (if you know what that is) before making a post? Woulves? Or checking your punctuation, or what words should be upper case? Do you know the difference between their and there? You probably have no idea what I mean.

bigsky. Jim Beers is another one of those wolf haters with no credibility. #1 He is a hunter and #2 he worked for adc (animal damage control) in the usfws, do you think someone like this is going to have a positive attitude toward wolves? No, he will despise them.

Tom, elk are not going extinct. Has the past thought you anything Tom? Do you have any idea how long wolves and elk lived alongside each other? Tom, you are an outfitter, all you care about is providing an elk for a client. I guess getting a real job never crossed your mind huh?

God, bigsky talking about big wolves. Gimme a break! It is the same ol bs with you wolf haters. The wolves are so big, they are going to make the elk go extinct bla bla bla. Get a clue you idiots. Tom, is your outfitting business doing bad? What do you tell your clients when you fail to provide them with a prey animal? Blame it on the predators right Tom? People like you never want to take responsibility for their own actions, so place the blame elsewhere right Tom? Hunters have no credibility when speaking about wolves because it is clear and obvious you despise them because theyare much more efficient hunters than you and they are making it much harder for you to get yourself an elk.

There are so many elk around here, that ranchers bitch about them eating the grass that only their herefords or angus cattle are entitled to eat. So, we have depredation hunts where elk and deer are shot in fields, thus supposedly saving the rancher's livelihood. We have a month-long bow season, followed by a month long elk season (you can choose to hunt a cow, calf, spike or antlered bull), followed by late season hunts.

Then there is the issue of roadkill. The same people bitching about predators, are driving 70 mph at night on roads where elk and deer may be crossing.

Ever drive the interstate through the deer winter range from Idaho to Snowville UT? Dead deer everywhere along the side of the road.

Factoid: wolves driving gas-guzzling, huge pickup trucks, going 80 mph are responsible for intentionally hitting and killing hundreds of mule deer. I think I read this on huntwolves or some other anti-predator website. It's often stated by the anti-wulfers that wolves "recreational kill", and now wolves have learned to drive recreational vehicles. Like I said, a factoid from the anti-wulfers.

Touched a sore spot, huh? He He. Jim Beers is just a biologist and knows as much as anyone about wolves. You wolf huggers don't like him because he won't totally agree with you. Read that link Todd put up. Sort of takes away all meaning in your life, does it not, save the wolfies? Like I said, and have been told many times by my "redneck" (as you would call them) canadian friends. These wolves are bad news. Balance? If "Balance" means taking out 90 to 95% of the prey species and then watching the wolves disperse to do it again and again, the "balance" is something we do not want. Save the wolfie is throwing a fit now. Gosh, proven wrong again! Owl, I cannot disagree that some areas have more elk then objectives true. Guess I would rather see than than no elk at all. Its coming to that in many areas. Most of the overpopulation problems are coming from private land which is leased or no hunting is allowed, no doubt. The elk move into those areas to be safe from hunters. No saftey from wolves, for sure. You guys can pretend that you are going to spread wolves from coast to coast, go ahead and pretent. You won't get them into washington (the few that are there will not last long), you won't get them into colorodo (same thing). Nice thing about upper minnesota is that there seems to be little farming or livestock? Dunno. Point is (and read the article) anywhere wolves abound, ungulates decrease drastically.

C'mon, owl and save, comment on Dr. Mech's testimony. By the way you do realize it was Rick McIntyre that hit and killed a wolf in Yellowstoen last year don't you. He is the wolf expert for all of the voyeurs of wolves.

90 to 95% of the prey species? Where in the hell are you getting these #s from? Are you pulling these #s out of your ass bigsky? Last I heard, elk herds are doing good in the 3 states. Yes, some areas elk #s are lower than usual, but that is natural bigsky. Do you get that? NATURAL. Gotta love how nature works. Things are different, no more max elk harvest bigsky, like I told mt. hunter, them days are long gone. kiss them good bye because they aren't coming back. Bigsky, do you get that elk #s go up and down? The problem is you hunters always want high elk #s, but that is not the way things are anymore and they shouldn't be that way. Try to understand nature sometime. I am confident they will be in Washington and Colorado. Colorado has 290,000 elk. Wolves need to thin their #s out. Wolves will eventually come back to most places they once roamed. They made a great choice bringing wolves back and the more wolves, the better.

Big Sky - "colorodo" - is that somewhere in the Galaxy?

Todd - am not familiar with Yellowstoen. A new planet? Comet? Lot of wolf experts out there, you included, apparently.

"save the wolves"

Not a problem, my hunters do just fine. I don't mind a few wolves but they need managed , controlled, kept in check and elk and elk hunters will do just fine as well as moose, caribou and all ungulate wildlife. But to you its let the wolves take over and get rid of the nasty old hunters and mother nature will balance out and everything will be hunky dory. I can't believe all of the over exaggerated benefits that you wolf only rads bestow on the benefits of having wolves. Like I said earlier it is of no use what so ever to try to bestow some common sense reasoning on a radical such as yourself. Give it up and accept that man is here to stay and things will never return to the idealistic, hopeful, fanatical premonitions zapping through your mind.

My comment was the the Merriam elk of the southwest went extinct, although some think that there might have been a remnant population left that eventually crossbred with the Yellowstone elk reintroduced here in the 60's. I don't really think so. I don't foresee elk going extinct as long as our State Game Departments and hunting remains the most viable option for managing wildlife.

"Owl Creek" where or why do you bring up such stupid factoids when they must just be a figment of your factoid-ed mind.

By the way Jim Beers has exposed most of the true radical liars in the USFWS and how they perpetrated their government sponsored terrorism on the people of the west. You blame him for being anti wolf but he is more anti crooked government employees by far than he is against the wolf. If you want to really get down to it he probably has more respect for the wolves than you give him credit for. The pro wolf movement will stop at nothing to have their wolf only way, and everybody and everything else in their road, be damned.

Klumker - give me a break. USFWS has facilitated "terrorism" on people of the west?

Jim Beers has exposed radical liars? This misfit, couldn't get along with anyone when he worked for USFWS.

Rage on. Isn't it time for you to go outside and slug your dog or find a coyote to shoot?

Todd, yeah, I read it. do you have a point? That is Mech's opinion, do you think every other person is going to automatically agree with it? What if Mech said they shouldn't be hunted, you would disagree with him and you know it. Tom, you should not speak of common sense because you have none yourself. If you did, common sense would tell you that elk and wolves have co-existed together for thousands and thousands of years and elk did not go extinct. if you had any brains and understood nature based on what happened in the past, you would know wolves are not capable of killing off elk. Jim Beers is a clown. He accepted money from the people he doesn't like and speaks harshly about just to keep his mouth shut. He is no better than those he accuses. Tom, we don't only want wolves, where do you get these ridiculous ideas? Do you just assume something to be true? Jim Beers is far from a wolf expert. It is funny because all of the so called experts to agree with and bring up time and time again Tom are infact not wolf experts. Read Beers' credentials and tell me where does it say he is a wolf biologist. I mean if you people can't even come up with a real wolf biologist that shares the same views about wolves as you, you are in trouble if you plan on winning this so called war. Wolves are already in Colorado.

"save the wolves" and "owl creek"

I never said Jim Beers was a wolf expert, but it didn't take him long to see what drives the USFWS and the games they play. It is a constant comedy of errors and stupid with the folks who migrate to the top of that organization. Really sad! Terrorism yes. Just talk to the ranchers the wolves have put out of business. they are always being promised compensation of some form of the other. What a farce. Defenders of Wildlife really try to make people believe they are doing so great. What an absolute lie and injustice they try to perpetrate on the unsuspecting. Most of the ranchers I know just like to raise livestock but not just to feed the wolves. It seems our Mexican hybrid government dogs here have a propensity for beef. Terrorism yes, several children in have lost their pets, and even one little girl had her favorite horse killed right in the corral next to their summer home. Not a pretty sight to see their dogs all torn up and or laying dead. One girl's dog was even killed fairly close to her and her family and there was nothing they could do about it. Have you had a pack of human habituated wolves that have no fear of humans or human scent in the middle of your camp. That will strike a little fear in your ole sole. I can attest to that. Again I don't hate wolves, but I hate having them forced on us and our lifestyles by you and the US Gov.

Common sense, now that is a debatable subject. I claim you guys have none and you claim I have none. Whatever.

Owl why don't you fly up in a tree and hug it, or are you too busy hugging your bunny.

Yeah Tom, that is kinda what wolves do, you know, kill animals, eat beef. Keep your pets on a leesh Tom and maybe wolves won't get at them. Caution should be used. Tom, forced on you? Tom, no animals were forced on you. Wolves belong there. Just because they may inconvenience you does not mean they don't belong there or were forced on you.

Just a reminder save, the wolves belong where you are too.

Klumker - If there's any terrorism going on, it's toward wildlife from the livestock industry and their taxpayer-financed partner, Wildlife Services, that kills hundreds of thousands of animals and birds annually. Domestic animals like dogs or horses, are in far more risk from killing at the hand of a human. I live every day among wolves and give me a wolf or pack of wolves, any day over the fear-mongering people like yourself, who make up Little Red Riding Hood tales, to fuel fear of wolves. The man who heads up the Oregon Cattleman's group, brags about shooting 25 dogs including pups. And then he is freaked out about one wolf pack in NE Oregon. If only wolves had guns.

Yes, they do. Todd, there are hundreds of wolves in MI. I don't mind them being here what so ever. Unlike you, I like wolves.

"Domestic animals like dogs or horses, are in far more risk from killing at the hand of a human."

WOW,what are you smoking?

Humans do not kill and eat horses or dogs,at least not those from the U.S.
Wolves however kill a large number of dogs, a few horses,and a lot of cattle and sheep, a few goats,some llamas,alpacas,and other exotics in MT, ID and Wy, ever since the re-introduction of the non-native Canadian gray wolf.

By save the wolves

"no animals were forced on you. Wolves belong there."

WOLVES WERE FORCED ON US BY YOU ENVIROS,they were extinct,gone and for a reason,wolves and humans and human activities do not mix,history has proven this.

Wolves are a hell of a lot more than an "inconvenience" on US,they have had exactly ZERO effect on you because YOU DO NOT LIVE HERE!!!!!

Dr. Valerius Geist has done an expose on "The Little Red Riding Hood" so called tale or myth. It actually had roots and has had a great effect on several generations of scientists in the world and modern day pro wolf groups continue to try and ignore history and give heaping praise and accolades on the so called positive benefits of their behavior and that they are not dangerous to humans. Dr. Geist has researched extensively into wolf history in the world and brings to the modern day table a lot of research into the tales perpetrated by the well meaning scientists for many years. Canadian Douglas H. Pimlott and American David Mech helped formulate the view of the "harmless wolf". Research by Dr. Geist and others is now proving that habituated wolves are dangerous to humans. Dr. Geist used to believe like they did.

Another interesting theory or fact is that, "the three Native American carnivores, black bears, cougars and coyotes are more adaptable and "smart". Ice Age North America was populated by very big, highly specialized predators and the surviving ones were way down on the totem pole of power. This fierce predation pressure insured that native North American predators and herbivores were exceptionally able to avoid predation. They are very adaptable. The wolf is not. It is a Siberian species, which spread throughout North America with other Siberian species such as grizzly bear, wolverine, moose, elk and humans when the native Mega-fauna died out beginning 12,000 years ago. The latter are doing quite well in North America, even close to humans, the wolf, grizzly and wolverine are not. These three Siberian species are of great concern to wildlife conservation. The three old American's are not."

Geist has a lot of valuable insight on wolves but unfortunately the pro wolf people keep their collective heads in the sand and ignore his research, and most of his life and well into his retirement he thought just like they did.

Some more good read into what is really happening in Idaho with wildlife and wolves is published in the "Outdoorsman" bulletin by George Dovel. Again he is ignored by the "blinders on" pro wolfers.

Well boys and girls, wolves do have a place and belong but need some understanding and management, not the fairy tales and out and out lies being promoted by the pro wolfers. Of course if you keep repeating your lies long enough I guess you probably believe them. This is not to say that all of what they say about wolves is false, but wolves are not the panacea some would like us to believe.

I've got volumes of wolf related research, studies and first hand experience and it will take a whole lot more than what "save the wolves" and "owl creek" have put forth to convince me. Like I said yesterday there is probably some middle ground on agreement but it doesn't appear to be forth coming from this thread. All we hear is smears, hate and regurgitated baloney, coming from some of the participants.

By save the wolves

What CREDIBLE sources have YOU given??? NONE!!!
You refuse to even read anything that does not support your views!!!!

By Tom Klumker

Tom,
There was a prior thread on newwest about the proposed trapping ban/I-161 same thing no one trying to see the other sides point,but a few of us did in the end,and us few all suggested our ideas for a workable solutuion.
May not be possible in this case,the wolf issue is sort of hot,
too much emotion involved.
Too much skewed info,too many slanted studies being done by both sides.
We live here,we see the problems,most of the people like save the wolves don't even live here.They have no clue what actually is going on,they paint every hunter as an evil killer of everything. Just look at save the wolves comments,we are cowards with guns.
He is a flatlander from Michigan where they have a couple hundred wolves and a few million deer,the wolves cause no problems there.
If stw would make an attempt at compromise on the issue,his opinions might count for something to me, but they don't he attacked hunters from the beginning,he refuses to look up any facts posted that support the opposite view.He uses skewed info from RMEF,won't use info from areas where wolves are a problem,and says hunters only care about getting their elk,which is a line he stole from George Wuethner. People are part of the equation now,wolves and elk could live together in the past,not now,man has changed things too much,we can not go back to the times before the white man came to this country.

Wuerthner

"common sense would tell you that elk and wolves have co-existed together for thousands and thousands of years and elk did not go extinct. if you had any brains and understood nature based on what happened in the past, you would know wolves are not capable of killing off elk."

Elk did not go extinct because they had timber to hide in valleys to graze in ,and were not concentrated in areas with no migration routes out,man changed that,if you put high wolf numbers with high elk numbers,the wolves eat most of the elk, I gave links to support this,they were ignored.

Wolves are capable of killing of elk now,because man changed the landscape,and food sources, your little scenario only works if there are no people,no agriculture,no ranchers.
That is what your type wants,along with no hunting.

This topic has been beat to death, and if statements by wolf experts like Giest and Mech doesnt' change minds, I won't. But I am blown away by the hatred expressed by those who have nothing to lose, nothing invested and no problems to deal with, and above all who are getting to impose their values on someone else to deal with and are getting their way. The venom against those dealing with a most difficult situation is amazing.

By save the wolves, 5-25-10

"Yeah Tom, that is kinda what wolves do, you know, kill animals, eat beef. Keep your pets on a leesh Tom and maybe wolves won't get at them."


Where was this BEEF that wolves ate in the past,they ate it before man came to the west? And the pets that you say should be kept on a leash? Were they just hanging around in pre-columbian times too?


Remember,MAN DOMESTICATED THE WOLF,THAT IS WHERE DOGS CAME FROM!!! Man used these domesticated wolves for things like PROTECTING LIVESTOCK!!!

WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE "WILD WOLVES" in NW MONTANA,especially the NON- NATIVE CANADIAN GRAY WOLF!!!

Wolves will continue to be hunted,elk will continue to be managed for max. hunter harvest,not max. wolf harvest of elk!!!

Todd

I don't know about the venom from the "other side" I know mine comes from all the out of state people trying to tell me what I can and can not do on MY PROPERTY!!!
Just like Footloose Montana,some granola eating,tofu eating,I will not eat anything that used to be a living creature woman had her dog get caught in a konnibear trap,and it choked the dog,this was a legal set,dog was unleashed running around,and stuck it's head in the bait,the dog should not have been running around where there are legal traps permitted,the set was checked out by FWP,and was found to be legal, now,they want to ban ALL trapping!


I used to just ignore all the whacko enviro posts everywhere,but lately,they are getting out of control,and attacking my way of life,and it just pisses me off.
Most of these people are city people,watched "Bambi" too many times,and that is their perception of animals.
What gives them the right to tell me how to live? Do I come into their cities,and tell them all the TV,crowding,the jobs where they get barely enough to get by is wrong? Or that we actually do have a better understanding of what is going around here than they do is right makes no difference to them.

Maybe it is all the bowls of grape nuts, like eating a bowl of gravel,if they just ate a decent steak,they would be happier.

stw,

How many elk do you have in MI?? BINGO!
Do elk have twins like deer do?? BINGO!
Do elk reproduce in civilized areas like deer do?? BINGO!
Do wolves hunt in civilized areas?? BINGO!

Looks like you are comparing apples to oranges. I suggest you worry about MI and leave MT, ID and WY to the residents. Here's a link to some wolf results you won't enjoy. I asked the locals and they answered. Those that said no aren't locals. Here you go.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/poll_eebadb72-6139-11df-a987-001cc4c03286.html

Mt, hunter, you do not own the land. Wolves were not FORCED on you, they were brought back for a reason. A reason you can't seem to understand. Mt. hunter, these wolves are very much native. Where you get your info from is beyond me, but I can take a wild guess. There is no truth to that claim what so ever. Tom, Geist is the only so called phony wolf expert you people ever bring up. You simply like him and call him a wolf expert when he's not simply because he has a negative attitude towards wolves just like you. First Geist is a wolf expert and now Jim Beers apparently is. haha You people make me laugh with your phony wolf experts. George Doval, no one listens to him because he is a hunter Tom. He is just another wolf hater that uses anti wolf hysteria to further his cause. I guess you are going to call him a wolf expert too huh? haha Elk aren't going extinct anytime soon mt. hunter. I have no idea what you are smoking, but I can tell you right now, you are saying that because you don't want wolves in Montana period. What it comes down to is your own selfishness. All you care about is elk harvesting and nothing more. Mt. hunter, you just lost what small credibility you think you had. This non native canadian wolf nonsense has been beaten to death and wolf experts will even tell you these wolves are native to Montana. This is what happens when you rely on wolf haters for information. Mt. hunter, how many times do I have to tell you that max elk harvest is long gone? Do you get this? Man is no longer the top apex predator of elk, wolves are and that is the way things should be. Your dreams of max elk harvest are a thing of the past and if you don't believe me, ask any hunter and he will tell you the same thing. There comes a time when you need to stop denying the obvious.

More typical drivel from the prowolfers. Can't win the argument, then check the grammer....Ha Ha. Appears to me elk and moose get depressed to 10% of their carrying capacity by wolves, what a shame. I just hope is does not go to zero. Save the wolfies, you must be a veggie also? We should keep this conversation up until June 15th. After that, we will be legally harvesting wolves in Motana. Every wolf harvested will put 15 more elk on the land, save at least one domestic animal, be it the neighbors cow, horse, or dog, and allow some folks a chance to fill their freezers with elk meat. I love the "no one listens to him because he is a hunter" by saver of wolfies. Like hunters are the scrounge of the earth. Gee, funny thing, I am a hunter. I umpire baseball for nothing, ref football games, volunteer at the rest home once a month, raised two kids which are going to college now, never beat my wife, get along with my neighbors also. I never realized I was such a terrible person.....just goes to show you the NUTS that are in this big free country we have. Steve, Todd, Mt. Hunter, Tom, thanks

Mountain hunter, I fully understand the anger of those who have had the wolves foisted off on them to suit somebody way far away. Ranchers have had wolf killed livestock virtualy in their yards, certainly in pastures close to their homes....all to make city folks thing THEY are saving something. Interestingly none of them are concerned with saving wolves where they once roamed in their own neighborhoods. None of them are concerned at the amount of taxpayer dollars these bloated "non profits" are making off of all of us by using such idiocy as plant more wolf programs. I do not understand the vitriol from those who are imposing their will on others, and their hatred. It is as puzzling as hatred based on race and very similar in the irrational tone of it.

Mountain Hunter - you missed the point. A dog gets annoying, and its owner shoots it. Look at the example of the rancher over in NE Oregon, bragging about killing 25 dogs inc pups. Cattle and sheep dogs live a short, hard life. Horses get sent to the glue factory when they get old, or hurt.

Most of the dogs that have been killed by wolves are hounds, on pursuit of a bear or lion. Hound hunting (and trapping and bear baiting) are barbaric practices that have no place in a civilized society. It's well known that in a litter of hunting dogs, one or two may be selected, and the rest are "disposed of". If the ones selected, don't cut mustard, then they are shot.

If you guys can let up on your fusillades for just a moment, I 'd like to remind you that nearly all environmental groups support regulated hunting of wolves. A true environmentalist and their organizations would want you to hunt wolves. Honestly . They're not all happy about it, but realize it's necessary and a tool for managing wolves.

If only the state of Wyoming would drop it's stupid 19th century demand for a free-fire Predator Status outside the primary recovery zone around Yellowstone, and go to statewide regulated wolf hunting as Idaho and Montana already have done , then Judge Molloy would probably agree to delist wolves in all three states.

The legitimate , professional, working environmental organizations are not against hunting nor against the hunting of wolves. But hunting is only one tool and not the most important tool , nor does it supersede any other tool.

I do not belong to any organized environmental group. I used to . I am still an activist , but as an individual. I , too, have lost most of my faith in the environmental organizations in recent years for the same analagous reason that many people quit going to church but remain good Christians nevertheless.

Of course wolves need to be managed. But they also need to be allowed the opportunity to diversify the packs and disperse. The wolf cannot be held to a different standard than the rest of our legal system which holds unswervingly that innocence is presumed until proven guilty. A particular wolf not creating problems with livestock should not be put in the line of fire, " just becausse" it's a wolf well away from Yellowstone. That's presumption of guilt without remorse or legal process by the state. If the wolf is behaving, and the season isn't open , leave it be. For instance, Colorado needs wolves, but they have to be able to get past the Wyoming firewall to get there from here.

At the Cody Wolf Rally last Saturday , I tried to have open honest discourse with a few outfitter types. I told them I was an environmentalist, dd not belong to an organization , and supported regulated hunting and control of wolves statewide , and reiterated it was in their interests to do so as well. I also told them that for twenty years I worked in hunting camps as a guide and camptender and packer and was not opposed to hunting at all. But I had to come down on the side of wolves at this point in time, as an envronmentalist and wildlife conservationist, because I feel that organized hunting groups and commercial outfitting were not effectively managing wildlife, and that industrial trophy elk hunting was hammering down the genetics and unbalancing the herds. The wolves are necessary to restore the balance but must be given time and opportunity to do so, which means outfitters and the public will have to hunt alongside wolves for the forseeable future.

Each and every one of the outfitters I spoke to admitted they hate environmentalists, even those that support hunting done right and are willing to meet them halfway.

It's exactly what I am reading here. The polarization is poisoning the wolf debate.

You know who you are.

"It's well known that in a litter of hunting dogs, one or two may be selected, and the rest are "disposed of". If the ones selected, don't cut mustard, then they are shot."

Another bunch of BS,I have hgad dogs all of my life including at times "huntuing dogs" never have I or anyone I know shot a dog,never,or disposed of a dog by any means other than selling or giving away the pups.
You are talikng ONE INSTANCE that you heard of ,and saying ALL HUNTERS ARE LIKE THIS!!! NOT TRUE!!

As the last poster said,if all of you,ans all of us made an attempt to meet halfway,then more positive change would happen,not the endless court battles.

By save the wolves, 5-25-10

"Mt, hunter, you do not own the land. Wolves were not FORCED on you, they were brought back for a reason"

You do not own the land either STW,and yes,the wolves were forced on us,we had no say.
I do happen to own a lot of land,and guees what? I now have to put up with wolves on it. This is on MY LAND not yours,not state land,not fed. land,my own land,been in my family since the 1800's,
how much land do you own in MT? How much do you pay in property taxes? How much do you pay for hunting and fishing licenses here? EXACTLY ZERO!!
Which is how much say you have about what goes on on our land,land we own,not the gov. not you, those of us who live here,not in Michigan.

Mt. hunter, if you had a say, you would say you didn't want any wolves. You think the lands and the elk belong to you, but they don't. Wolves were put back where they once were for numerous reasons. If they are inconveniencing you, oh well.

"Hound hunting (and trapping and bear baiting) are barbaric practices that have no place in a civilized society"

NO,these things have no place in YOUR IDEA of a civilized society,just because you are against them does not mean all are against them,another example of your type trying to im pose your will on others.
Trapping is legal,hound hunting is legal in many states,in most states for small game like rabbits,raccoons,ect.

You think these things are wrong,I do not,it is an OPINION,by both of us,not a fact, like you pretend it is.

The majority of those who oppose trapping here are out of state people,that is fact,check the record of groups like footloose Montana,see where their money comes from.
Another case of people who do not live here trying to tell those who do live here what we can and can not do.

By save the wolves


You do not live here,and you have NO RIGHT to tell me what to do on MY OWN land!!!
You don't get it at all. SOME wolves are fine,not high numbers,concentrated around elk herds,there are better areas for them,with a wider variety of game.

If the wolf hunting seasons bother you,get over it,Montana is RAISING THE QUOTA this year,up to as many as 216 wolves.
GET OVER IT.

You can't get it through your head that elk reproduce a lot slower than your NMichigan whitetails do,your deer have twins,even triplets when their populations get low,elk do not,and as has been proven,areas with high wolf numbers have low elk numbers,do the math,a wolf pack kills an average of 107 elk per year,how many elk will there be in Montana in 5 years? 10 years?
Wolves will continue to be hunted,elk will continue to be managed for max. nunter harvest,not max wolf kill.If we have to shoot 500 wolves next year,we will.
In another 2-3 years there will be 0 moose left in Yellowstone,why? THE WOLVES.
Your money would be better spent by donating it to the state game depts,they are who will be managing wolves from now on.
People hunt,get over it,we will continue to hunt elk,and wolves.

The Canadian wolf is larger than the wolf in the US,that is a fact,how much of the wolves here have the genes from the larger wolves has not been decided yet. Just like coyotes,eastern coyotes have more wolf genes than the western and desert coyotes.Your Michigan wolves are smaller than the western wolves,why?

save the wolves

If these wolves were native to Montana how come they were trapped IN CANADA? The Canadian wolf argument does have some merit,just not with you,it doesn't fit in your fantasy world.

The wolf of the Northern Rockies was Canis lupus irremotus. What USFWS illegally transplanted here are two other subspecies (columbianus and occidentallis).

Mt. hunter, it does not matter if it's legal or not, they are wrong. You do understand that other animals get caught in traps trappers out out right? You must be braindead moutain hunter because I already told you a million times, max elk harvest are a thing of the past. There are other predators out there who actually NEED to kill elk in order to survive, you do not. Are you having a hard time accepting that the max elk harvest days are a thing of the past? You really need to start accepting this. Wolves were already on their way down naturally on their own. All people did was help speed the process up. These are the same wolves that were in Montana before they were wiped out. This non native wolf nonsense is bogus and there is no truth to it. You will make up any lie you can just because you don't want wolves there in MT hunter. max elk harvest is long gone, get over it and move on.

There are those who say we brought the wrong wolves into Idaho in 1995 and 1996, that they’re bigger wolves than the ones that were here.
I have to support the science again, and specialists in morphology and genetics on wolves indicate that the wolf that was brought down from Canada is the same wolf that lived here previously. And I did some research into books on early wolves that were captured in the Northern Rockies, even as far south as Colorado during the days that wolves were being hunted down in the 1930s; and the body weights were very much the same.

So I feel that this wolf that was brought from Canada is the same species and genetics as the wolves that lived here once upon a time. I think people have to remember that the northern Rockies -- we call it the northern Rockies in Idaho and Montana, but actually we’re a southern extension of the northern Rockies out of Canada -- and all of those wolves in Canada have the potential and the ability to disperse. I believe what happened over the last 50-60 years is that individual wolves have come from Canada following the Rocky Mountain chain and ended up periodically in places like Montana and Idaho.

Carter Niemeyer is a hunter and trapper, now, what do you have to say for yourself mountain hunter? haha

WOLVES: Separate facts from myths

Myth: Wolves decimating elk herds. Fact: IDFG data. Idaho’s elk numbers up or steady, all but two of 29 zones. Overall elk numbers increased in wolf states (Idaho,Wyoming, Montana). Wolves pushed elk off valley floors into mountains: harder to find.
Myth: Wolves decimating livestock. Fact: USDA/IDFG. Wolves responsible less than 2 percent livestock predation deaths. Ranchers privately compensated for verified wolf losses, by state for unverified/missing losses.

Myth: Wolves dangerous, attack people. Fact: Only one North American human death attributed wolves in last 110 years. Vast majority wolf-human encounters simple wolf curosity. IDFG Release 2006. Person in wolf country has greater chance being hit by lightning, dying of bee sting, killed in vehicle collision with deer, than injured by wolf.
Myth: Reintroduced Canadian wolves not native, larger, more aggressive. Fact: IDFG Release 2006. Biological, genetic research; only two interbreeding wolf subspecies historically inhabiting central, western US, Canada. Same wolves lived both western US, Canada.
Myth: Wolf kills have no purpose. Fact: Journal Wildlife Management. Wolves prey on most vulnerable elk, deer; old, weak, diseased, injured, very young (however elk calf survival remains steady). Contribute genetically to stronger elk, deer herds.
More Facts: IDFG assumes annual wolf increase 20-22 percent. Erroneous. USFW actual increase 2007, 8.8 percent,2008, 15.6 percent. IDFG Panhandle wolf estimate 2008-41. Never case wolf livestock predation. 2009 hunting quota 30 (70 percent). Idaho 53,484,800 acres. If half 26,742,400 wolf suitable habitat; state wolf goal 500. Then one wolf every 53,485 acres.

Mt. hunter, I have to say I am not surprised one bit at the amount of misinformation you wolf haters possess.

Rumors of 150-pound wolves abound in the Idaho Panhandle, but most of the wolves taken by hunters are much smaller.

Adult females averaged 86 pounds, according to Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials, who also included the weights of wolves struck by vehicles in the survey. For adult males, 101 pounds was the average.

The exception was a 130-pound adult male killed in Boundary County that was weighed after its stomach had been removed.

It’s not surprising that wolf weights get exaggerated, said Jim Hayden, Fish and Game’s regional wildlife manager in Coeur d’Alene.

“They look huge,” he said. “They’ve got long legs, big heads and lots of fur.”

Wolves have 2- to 4-inch-long guard hairs around their necks, reinforcing the impression of a bulky body, said Jason Husseman, a Fish and Game wolf biologist in Salmon, Idaho. People see wolves, compare them to their dogs, and estimate that the wolves weigh 150 pounds.

“It’s a human tendency to overestimate. You see the same thing with bear sightings,” Husseman said.

In actuality, wolves have the lean, rangy build of distance runners – an adaption that helps them chase down prey, he said.

Some opponents of wolf reintroduction claim that the Canadian gray wolves released in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s are a larger, more aggressive subspecies than native wolves, which were extinct by the 1930s. Biologists say there’s little or no evidence to back up that assertion.

“I’m curious that they throw out those numbers – that the Canadian wolves are 50 to 100 pounds bigger than the native Idaho wolves,” Husseman said. “I don’t know where those numbers come from.”

Hayden said the most authoritative research on wolf subspecies comes from a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service zoologist, Ronald Nowak, who studied 580 historic skulls of full-grown male wolves. Nowak concluded that North America had five subspecies of gray wolves. Two subspecies had historic ranges in Idaho – the Rocky Mountain wolf and the Great Plains wolf.

The Rocky Mountain subspecies outweighed the Great Plains wolf by about 20 pounds, Hayden said. But their ranges overlapped in the Idaho Panhandle, according to Nowak’s research.

“Realistically, there’s no difference between the subspecies. They interbreed,” Hayden said.

In addition, “we’ve got wolves that are walking here from Canada,” he said. “They’re the same species that would have been here in the past.”

To bad you never saw the research from Mr. Beers (and my zoology class) about wolves and size differentials. But you only listen to what you want to listen to.....no sense in trying....

Mountain hunter, you hit it on the head. Wrong wolves, yes. Same species, yes, but different location, different prey. WITNESSED by the fact that everywhere wolves have been found for five years, including ynp, moose populations have plummeted. Our moose are much smaller than canadian moose. YNP moose population in 1995, 1200. Now in 2010, 114. Their is a likely hood that moose will become extinct in the yellowstone system. Elk will continue to be managed for hunting, like always. The wolf numbers will drop. Trapping will be allowed in Montana in 5 years. Idaho is already considering this for next year. All the comments by this wolf fella are just that, comments by somebody who spends all his time on the computer and has no actual experience with anything. You watch. In many areas, legal or not, there will be no wolves. Nothing ol wolf boy can do about it, either. Elk will continue to be managed for hunting, the way it should be. This provides jobs for our residents through the fish and game, and provides much revenue for recreation, sporting goods stores. Heck, even outfitters make a buck. A beautiful system. Ol wolf boy can't stand it, but thats the way it will remain.

Bigsky, only in your imagination.

University of Montana professor Mark Hebblewhite knows all about the interaction between wolves and their prey.
For more than a decade, Hebblewhite tracked elk, caribou and moose in the wilds of Canada to research just that.
On Monday night he offered an overview of what he'd learned to a packed house of about 160 at Hamilton's Bitterroot River Inn during a talk hosted by the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association.
Those hoping for a glimmer that someday elk numbers might rebound to something close to the record populations found in the Bitterroot before wolves came on the scene most likely left disappointed.
Hebblewhite's take home message was simple and direct.
Wolves are here to stay and elk are on the menu. Hunters can't shoot their way out of it. In places where good elk habitat is sparse, elk numbers could take a big hit.
There will be some benefits too for things like willow and aspen regeneration, which could help critters like beaver and song birds.
"I'm sure it wasn't the message that people wanted to hear," said Tony Jones, president of the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association. "We've lived through the good old days (of elk hunting opportunity) and it's doubtful that it will ever come back."

See mountain hunter, I think it's time to accept those good ol days are over. It is a thing of the past.

Myth: Wolves are not deciminating elk herds. In every area wolves have been found for 5 years, elk populations are plummeting. Ex. Northern Yellowstone elk herd in 1995, 19,000, today, less than 5,000 and less than 10% of cows have calves that reach one year old. 1995, lolo elk herd, 13,000, today, less than 2,100, less than 10% of calves reach one year old. Gallitan elk herd in 1995, 1,000. Less than 300 elk today, less than 10% of calves reach one year old. All found in areas wolves have occupied for five years.
Myth: Wolves are not dangerous and do no attack people. Three instances of this have occurred in the the past five years, one in Alaska (school teacher), two in canada (one wolf hybrid, the "coyote", and one young man was killed
Myth:Reintroduce (Introduced) canadian wolves are the same wolves. Nope, same species, bigger wolf, as can be see by what they are doing to the smaller (than canadian) moose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Myth: Wolves do not kill for the fun of it. Been seen in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana many times. In deep snows, wolves often kill several to many elk, and leave them without eating any of them. In fact, it has been shown that often they eat just the fetus out of the cows, leaving her to die in agony.
The fact is, people live here now. There is not enough room for all these wolves.

Will Graves spent spent many years with wolf researchers in Russia and asked Ed Bangs before any release of wolves in YNP occured why their was so much discrepency in the number of prey animals killed annually by one gray wolf. The soviets have professionally documented the number of prey animals "normally" killed by one wolf in one year. The soviets literature states that one gray wolf will kill 50 dear each year (about 1 per week) or 50 to 80 boar, and about 8 to 10 moose. The US estimate is one deer every 23 days. Why is there such a difference in these figures? He goes on to comment that wolves kill large numbers of game and domestic animals also, something in the order of 30,000 to 40,000 reindeer and 700 to 800 moose. The US (bangs) was warmed about "sport killing". Eight wolves killed 50 reindeer in about two days. In 1978 one wolf killed 39 reindeer in one attack. A pack of wolves killed over 200 sheep in a few short attckts. There are many, many, examples of lustfull killing of animals by wolves in the former USSR.

I have been to yellowstone. I saw lots of aspen and willows along every creek. I also saw BEAVERS! Another "farce" by the environmental nazis....

"save the wolves"

Try reading some of Dr. Geist. You will be enlightened. He has done a tremendous amount of research on the history of wolves in the world and has gleaned much from this research. His expose on "When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?" is a very enlightening study and carefully and completely dispels the old myth that wolves are not dangerous to humans. You and your side continue to deny the facts. Get over it stw, as wolf numbers increase in the lower 48 you will see more and more wolf/human interactions. This is perhaps the pro wolfers biggest propaganda talking point. Geist blows this pure stupidity out the back door forever. Just maybe try to read at least this one study and it might, just might, open your mind a little bit.

Myth: Wolves cause only 2% livestock depredation loss. Fact: This is just the confirmed kills and that only very few are ever confirmed because of the methodology involved and the possible/probables files would bring the number up by 80%. This is not even figuring in the lost conception rates and weight losses these ranchers are suffering.

"Dewey"

I guess I am the bad old outfitter commenting here that you like to refer to, and like I said earlier there is a good number of rotten apples in any barrel, but you can't categorize the majority of the outfitters who are good responsible custodians of wildlife and reputable and honest business professionals. I know a whole lot more of the latter and only a few of the former. It sounds like the people you were involved with must have de-pants-ed you and threw you into a cold mountain stream to have such a negative opinion of the outfitting world. Sure we hate environmentalists but only the radical ones. I know and like a lot of the mid stream environmentalists and they are ok in my book. Just because they don't like to hunt doesn't make them bad. I have a lot of friends and family who do not hunt and that is ok. But for those of us who do like to hunt we don't like to be told we are weird and that we shouldn't. Hell America wouldn't have ever been developed without hunting, and in this day and age a legitimate service industry that helps hunters in their endeavors shouldn't be castigated by the likes of tsw. My great granddad guided Teddy Roosevelt in Yampa, Colorado in 1899 for mule deer and although they were hunters, that didn't make them bad men. Quite to the contrary.

When the wolves were to be de-listed there were 12 major environmental groups and anywhere from the most radical to the main stream. For you to say that "the legitimate, professional, working environmental organizations are not against hunting........" is pretty much a false statement. They all sued the government to not delist, so the states could start hunting the wolves. The National Wildlife Federation claim to have a few hunters but I even doubt some of those people as being real hunters. Most of those enviro groups are the mainstream groups and they do not want hunting and especially hunting of their beloved wolves.

Tom, you only rely on one so called phony wolf expert to get your information from. All predators have the capability of being dangerous. Wolves have killed 2 people in recent times, but I have to laugh how you wolf haters go around saying how wolves are so dangerous when there are many more animals out there that kill more people than wolves. People have killed way more wolves than wolves have people. Humans encroach on wolf habitat, so some time or another, there is going to be conflict. Go do some research and tell me how many people wolves have attacked and killed in idaho, wyoming, and Montana. Yes, people have guns now, but I don't recall of any instances where wolves have tried to kill a person in those 3 states. So are they dangerous? Any being can be dangerous if they feel you may post a threat to them. You call environmental groups radical but they are the ones who are trying to save wolves lives while your kind are trying to kill them, so who is the real radical? Your kind wants wolves dead, so they can be more elk for yourselves, so who is the real radical? You see, the big difference between wolves and people is that wolves actually depend on elk to survive, you don't. You are just a bitter person Tom, bitter and angry that the environmental organizations are winning most of the battles.

University of Montana professor Mark Hebblewhite knows all about the interaction between wolves and their prey.
For more than a decade, Hebblewhite tracked elk, caribou and moose in the wilds of Canada to research just that.
On Monday night he offered an overview of what he'd learned to a packed house of about 160 at Hamilton's Bitterroot River Inn during a talk hosted by the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association.
Those hoping for a glimmer that someday elk numbers might rebound to something close to the record populations found in the Bitterroot before wolves came on the scene most likely left disappointed.
Hebblewhite's take home message was simple and direct.
Wolves are here to stay and elk are on the menu. Hunters can't shoot their way out of it. In places where good elk habitat is sparse, elk numbers could take a big hit.
There will be some benefits too for things like willow and aspen regeneration, which could help critters like beaver and song birds.
"I'm sure it wasn't the message that people wanted to hear," said Tony Jones, president of the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association. "We've lived through the good old days (of elk hunting opportunity) and it's doubtful that it will ever come back."

"Wolves responsible less than 2 percent livestock predation deaths."

Where?Entire US? It's a hell of a lot more in just NW Montana,I see it you don't.
Like bigsky says,elk will continue to be managed for max hunter harvest,you are the one who is braindead there stw,you don't live here,you have no clue what goes on here.

I have been here for most of my life,been hunting for about 40 of those years,and the wolves do kill far too many elk around here,no matter what your enviro-nazi sites say.

Save the wolves new world....


ok, let's have more of these disasters across the country. introduce wolves in all our urban areas. central park, nyc could use a few packs. chicago could have a couple. LA could use several packs to help control gangs. disney could take quite a few especially in animal kingdom. air dropping several rogue wolves into selected sporting events would be enetertaining. the masters, super bowl, nba finals, maybe even selected baseball venues.

"save the wolves"

Like I keep saying, just read a little bit of Geist and you might be pleasantly surprised at just what a brilliant mind he has and how he totally blows away anyone you quote. You can't take anything away from him as he is legitimate and probably would be way over your head in comprehension it seems as you keep trying to discredit him in any stupid and ignorant slanderous way you can. Get over it stw, he is leaps and bounds ahead of the biologists you seem to be in love with.(Geist is educated in many disciplines besides biology) He is much more than a biologist but then again that is probably too hard for you to comprehend. He is turning so called wolf biology on its head and you squirm like a oily pig trying to deny it. Get a grip sonny! So far you don't seem to be able to.

Mt. hunter, read what Mark Hebblewhite said. You clearly aren't capable of accepting the obvious. Mt. hunter, I know very well what is going on there. You are clearly angry and bitter the max elk harvest days are over. Like Hebblewhite said, wolves are there to stay and elk are on the menu.

"I'm sure it wasn't the message that people wanted to hear," said Tony Jones, president of the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association. "We've lived through the good old days (of elk hunting opportunity) and it's doubtful that it will ever come back."

You must hate that the good days are gone mt. hunter. I know you can't stand it. Tom, as I said, you only bring up Guist just because he has a negative attitude towards wolves. He is not a wolf expert and he is 1 of 2 people your side brings up and tries to portray as wolf experts when they are far from it.

Tom, I don't care for Mech or any other wolf biologist to be honest, but you are kidding yourself if you think Guist is a wolf biologist and knows more than Mech. Mech has 50 years plus researching and handling wolves. That trumps anything Guist has done if you want to talk wolf expertise. There are other wolf experts that have much more credibility and knowledge than your butt buddy Guist.

stw,

You obviously can't read very well. I never said Geist was a wolf biologist but he is damn sure way ahead of those "fallen in love" with their own species, so called wolf biologists. Like I said and will say again, maybe you should try to read some of his research. I don't care if Mech has 100 years of experience, that doesn't mean he isn't biased as are a great many wildlife biologists.

Take for example Al LaCount who was a black bear biologist for the State of Arizona. He trapped many black bears, more than any man living but only in the higher reaches of the Mogollon Rim and I asked him if he ever trapped any down in the lower elevations and different ecological zones and he said, well no I haven't. He is a so called expert but has no solid credibility bringing only his bias into play and then the Arizona & New Mexico Game Department's treated him like he was God. Give me a break, my 14 year old grand daughter has as much credibility in wildlife management as he does. I don't know but I suspect that of Mech. Maybe he is right on in some aspects but he puts out a lot of clearly biased personal views that cater only to his and people of your persuasions.

I agree that wolves are here to stay and where they are left to proliferate hunting will become a lesser use of the resource. MR. non-hunter, all most of us hunters want is some management of the wolves and then maybe a balance can be struck, but you and your types don't want to share the prey base with us ole hunters. Unfortunately for you hunting is here to stay. It is too big of an economic resource and tradition for North America to piss away, on the ilk of your "have it all your way" types.

stw you seem to fit the category of a radical green enviro and no amount of science or reason is going to change your mind, so just keep on blathering your propaganda and maybe someone will convert to your side. You have no middle ground it seems so you are completely a lost cause when it comes to logical reasoning.

You are forgetting one thing Tom, Guist is just as bias as those wolf biologists you accuse of being biased. He is a hunter. Tell me, would you say many hunters like wolves or despise them? Hunters will be bias against wolves just like anyone else who shares the opposite view. What science is that Tom? Tom, I don't belong to any environmental organizations nor do I give a shit about them. The mistake you slimeballs keep on making is assuming that anyone who loves wolves must be part of an environmental organization or is an eco terrorist nazi or whatever stupid nonsense you use. I respect they (environmental organizations) are trying to save wolves, but that is it. If you want to blame them for whatever or hate them, fine, but there are others like me who want to save wolves. You hunters are destroying widllife for your own selfishness. I can tell you one thing Tom, I care more about wildlife than you and mt. hunter put together. People like you destroy wildlife for your own selfish benefit. You are also quite delusional in your thinking. I rarely hear facts from your side Tom, you accuse me of using propaganda, what are you using sir because it sure isn't facts, just assumptions and nothing more.

Bias wolf biologist, no wolf biologist, whatever. What you see is what you get. What I see and hear from PEOPLE who are out in the woods every day, or ranching, is that your wolves are overpopulated. So the number of wolves will go down when they prey is gone? Probably true, but in the mean time they will try to get something else to eat, such as cattle, sheep, etc. I don't want to see those elk herds as minimum levels, or gone totally. I don't buy the "nature crap" you are selling. We live in a different world now, with PEOPLE. Ya know, I carry bear spray. Never used it, probably never will, and I carry it where I can get to it in a second. People ask, you paranoid? Nope. I tell em I carry it for the environmental nuts that roam the main trails, just like you. This save the wolfies is exactly the reason why states want their rights back.

By save the wolves


As usual,you make assumptions,with no facts to back them up.
My family and I own land in MT,OH,WVa,PA,NC,we manage the lands for hunting,and for ALL wildlife. You again have no clue,you don't live where I live,you don't see what I see.

In NC, they tried to re-introduce the red wolf,guess what> BIG FAILURE,because they started to inter breed with coyotes,wild dogs,domestic dogs,and it ruined the gene pool,millions of dollars wasted on a dumb assed idea,just like in the west.

Like bigsky and myself keep trying to tell you elk herds will continue to be managed for max hunter harvest.
Hunters,and hunting orgs. like Ducks Unlimited, RMEF,all the whitetail groups, pheasants forever,trout unlimited,ect. ,along with the state game depts. ,which are funded by us hunters,have done,and continue to do far more for wildlife conservation than you ever have or ever will.

We have given you plenty of facts,you ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrow minded view of wolves roaming around everywhere in the west WHERE YOU DO NOT LIVE!!!!

Like bigsky ,I think it is more likely that I will have to use the can of bear spray I carry on some enviro whacko on a trail before it gets used on a bear.