New West Analysis
What’s Behind Judge Molloy’s Questioning of ‘Experimental’ Status for Wolves?
Molloy has asked attorneys for wildlife management agencies and the environmental groups that have sued them to prepare briefs by Feb. 22. At issue: whether Northern Rockies wolves are genetically diverse enough to still fit original reintroduction rules.By Brodie Farquhar, 2-07-11
 |
|
 | |
|
Late last month, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy asked attorneys for wildlife management agencies and environmental groups to answer this question: Can the Northern Rockies wolf population still be considered an “experimental” population, or has there been enough cross-breeding with Canadian wolves to declare there’s no danger of genetic isolation or inbreeding?
The answer may be critically important, because the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-90s was predicated on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calling those wolves an “experimental, non-essential species.”
This designation not only allowed wolves to be reintroduced to the tri-state region of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, it also gave the FWS the flexibility to essentially consider the wolves a large-scale experiment in reintroduction. Without that designation as experimental, the wolves would have fallen under the full protection of the Endangered Species Act and could not be so readily killed when they got into conflicts with livestock. (Great Lakes wolves are not experimental and do occasionally attack and kill livestock, which does prompt control measures.)
Molloy wrote that in the special rule published in March of 2010, FWS noted it does not intend to reevaluate the “nonessential experimental” designation given to the reintroduced wolves of the northern Rocky Mountains. Instead, the service indicated it would not alter the 10(j) status until the gray wolf of the northern Rocky Mountains is recovered and delisted.
Citing relevant statutes, Judge Molloy said distinct populations can only be considered “experimental when they are wholly separate geographically from non-experimental populations of the same species.”
Yet according to the service’s own research and Dept. of Interior attorneys, wrote Molloy, there has been documented dispersal and genetic exchange between Northern Rockies wolves and Canadian wolves – enough to raise the question of whether the 1,700-strong Northern Rockies wolves are still so genetically isolated from the 12,000-strong population of Canadian wolves, as to retain the status of “experimental.”
Molloy has asked attorneys for both sides to prepare briefs (not to exceed 2,500 words) by Feb. 22, to answer whether Northern Rockies wolves are “experimental.”
Molloy’s order, issued Jan. 28, emerged from a lawsuit filed in 2008 by environmental groups (Defenders of Wildlife, et al), objecting to newly proposed rules, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which could make it easier to kill wolves so as to protect deer, elk and moose herds.
That rule, no doubt, was prompted by widening concerns that herd numbers are going down and the widespread perception by many hunters that wolves are to blame. Trouble is, science doesn’t pin all or even most of the blame on wolves – not when there are other predators, human hunting, drought and forage conditions to consider as well.
Interior attorneys have extrapolated from studies that wolves are dispersing widely and breeding. Yet those studies could be attacked as being fairly weak, rather than statistically robust. Just because a few Idaho and Montana wolves have moved toward Canada and Canadian wolves have dispersed down into Idaho and Montana, does that really mean widespread genetic exchange? How much is enough? Do we have enough data to answer that question?
Opposition to wolf reintroduction from the ranching community might have been even more forceful had there been no experimental 10(j) designation. While the environmental community might have preferred a straightforward reintroduction with no caveats about the reintroduced wolves being experimental, that designation was widely understood to be a political compromise, designed to get wolf reintroduction off dead center.
The implicit deal for ranchers is that wolves that attacked livestock would be quickly killed. The implicit deal for the environmentalists is that wolves would quickly spread into good habitat that had abundant prey species and little opportunity or need to attack livestock.
To a great degree, both the environmental groups and the wildlife agencies (federal and state) would like to maintain the status quo, because 10(j) does create flexibility in dealing with wolves that attack livestock. If 10(j) goes away, so does the flexibility of targeting individual wolves and packs, or of allowing wolf hunts to draw down wolf numbers.
On the other hand, there may be those in the environmental community who would like to have wolves under straight ESA protection, and thereby have fewer losses to the guns of Wildlife Services or state big-game hunters. It might be viewed as a triumph for reintroduction, that Northern Rockies wolves now have genetic connectivity with their Canadian relations, and that genetic isolation is no longer to be feared.
And yet, that very triumph might set the stage for declaring the grey wolf to be recovered, or well on its way to recovery, and no longer needing ESA protections.
It gets complicated when law gets mixed in with biology and ecology. Add politics, and the complication factor grows by levels of magnitude. There are bills afoot in state legislatures and in Congress to turn wolf management over to the states and to strip wolves of ESA protections (regardless of law or science).
However the attorneys reply to Molloy’s order on Feb. 22, the semantics fight will only continue.
Brodie Farquhar is a natural resources freelance writer who has covered the salmon wars of the Northwest, water controversies in Colorado and Arizona and, for the past 10 years, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the Northern Rockies. His home is in Casper, Wyoming.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The original federal regulation that authorized reintroducion in 1994 specifically declared that delisting could not occur as long as wolves were classified as "predatory animals" in Wyoming. That 1994 regulation still applies.
In short, the state of Wyoming has deliberately undermined the delisting of wolves by its own intransigence over dual status. Had Wyoming gone with "trophy game" status for wolves in 2002, which means statewide regulation of hunting, the species would have been permanently delisted 5 years ago.
Wyoming's intransigence over dual status simply means that no one would now accept Wyoming's word that it would sustainably manage wolves under any legal designation.
RH
Seen this movie before.
Groundhog Day.
Six more weeks of wolf baiting.
Besides, Hoskins' comment above is all that need be said. QED.
Molloy's ruling has two angles.
In general, the "fill all niches" plaintiffs in this case (14-DWM) want to vacate a rule emplaced under 10j, when it was modified to allow predation of wildlife herds.
In case 56, part of the problem was not only evil Wyoming, but a lack of genetic interchance.
But in case 77 Consolidated, it was an "undisputed fact" agreed by both sides that genetic interchange and interbreeding is occuring, and with a 10j supposed to be isolated from any "real" endangered critters, are they, or ain't they.
Angle One: Molloy clears his docket by declaring any discussion of 10j moot. Case 14 is dismissed. That might cost Defenders an EAJA paycheck, as well as their argument that the Hatfield wolves are not boinking the McCoy wolves, but they should be happy with that. Why?
Molloy also gets to vacate the 10j rules completely because the experimental population has now become part of The Endangered Blob. No shootie no more by anyone except USFWS. Defenders wins on the ground.
Angle Two: If Molloy vacates the 10j status, then the specter is raised, if these wolves are in fact all Hatfields now, running the hot-date circuit from Dubois to Fernie, then they become part of the larger, connected, contiguous population of not-endangered, not-threatened Canuckistanian/North American wolves.
Seems to me that Molloy is being too clever for his own good. If he rules that connectivity is functional, but insists on keeping the wolves on the list, such a thing might be the trigger point for Congress to go ahead and render Molloy moot.
Will Defenders move to dismiss without prejudice? I would. But I'm sane, and Defenders are kooks. They'll ride this one in, fer shure.
The genetic angle went out the window awhile back. This just puts it on paper.
What I don't understand is if they are no longer an experimental population and have ties (breed) with their canadian cousins, then why are they considered endangered? Why not consider them part of the canadian population, which has never been put under the endangered status? Apparently political boundaries have no meaning to wolves.
Thinking you maybe covered that dave.....
Really does not matter what the environmental judge does anyway.
The rules are about to be changed to protect the people and the wildlife of our states.
Good Dewey, I don't wanna have lunch with you either......
Moose have been in trouble here for some time. The reason? Habitat. Willow communities are decadent and seriously overbrowsed in many watersheds. We haven't had the necessary flooding that would regenerate the riparian plant communities that moose depend on. Wolves have had nothing to do with the sorry state of the vegetation.
Unless Big Sky is going to claim he knows my watershed better than I do, I suggest he listen more than speak.
RH
Ask Fritz Meyer, your neighbor out there. He has a different opinion......
Your elk numbers are dropping, dropping, dropping.....
Moose about nonexistant.....
Keep making excuses about habitat, forest fires, etc. Your moose will be gone in another 10 years......just like yellowstone
Sometimes its better to look at the whole picture, and also to put PEOPLE into the equation.....
GIGO
As in GIGO Molloy? Sounds about right.
PEOPLE are in the equation, and they can't be taken out.
What you are alluding to is the dream of NO PEOPLE in the area. Would be better then? Oh, I forget, YOU will still be here to enjoy it.
You can't solve problems of this nature without feedback from the people who live and work in the area. In particular, the people who are most affected by this wolf disaster. Government employees don't count. They live off the rest of us.
Figured you'd call Fritz. Problem is, Fritz is wrong. G&F;data don't support him. You can find the annual herd unit reports on the G&F;website. Happy reading.
RH
You might want to reread his comments as he is making some very valid points.
The truth is, there just isn't any science that makes any valid reason while these wolves should still be protected, none. And the more Molloy tinkers with it, the more he risks federal actions.
You wolf huggers have seriously overreached, thought you would never be called on the carpet for it, but you are wrong.
So many of the claims have been shown to be complete BS.
Like Hoskins claim of over browsing by elk. I am sorry, but the elk didn't seem to be the problem as they still aren't recovering even after a 70% drop in elk populations.
The claim that elk were overpopulated in Yellowstone, yet we now learn that YS held in excess of 14,000 elk in the Northern herd the very day the park opened and has traditionally held 12,000 plus elk. The only time elk numbers have dropped below that was due to human intervention which included large scale slaughter and the creation of unnatural predator levels which now have them locked into a predator pit.
Genetic connectivity? Another pile if wild claims that has no real foundation in science. The obvious ignoring of Dr. Mech's testimony and vast experience in this area of wolves, further highlights the willingness to ignore real science to keep the cash cow for animal rights groups alive so they can continue to leech millions of tax dollars off the system to fill their coffers.
Molloy's last ruling further highlights the hypocrisy of his beliefs where he rules that political boundary's have no meaning to wolves, and then implements political boundary's in his ruling. And now he seriously stretches his authority. I am still trying to get an answer where he has authority to issue an order to show case since the case is already under appeal and moving to higher court.
Actually I was clearly referring to moose overbrowsing in the Dubois area, not elk.
We do have a real problem of elk overbrowsing in Jackson Hole due to too many elk on the National Elk Refuge, a problem that Olaus Murie first reported 70 years ago. I made no comment about the Northern Range.
Jumping to conclusions the way you do, you don't have any credibility.
RH
I don't think Molloy has a consistent view of the genetics at all. Not with his leftie history as an activist trial lawyer for TPLJ. But he's going to outmaneuver himself here.
If he vacates the 10j status, that's a huge green light for a delisting.
If the 10j is vacated because the population is now a unit, then the reasoning for denying the predator zone goes out the window, too. There's no population to interchange with between Minnesota and Wyoming -- and the linkage concept is not operative by any stretch of the imagination.
Only if Colorado puts wolves on the ground is there any possible need for "corridors" -- and given the punishment inflicted on the wolf states, Colorado sportsmen will not take that sitting down. Such a thing will turn them into single issue voters.
A delisting may be what Molloy wants in order to keep Congress from acting on the exemption bills by defusing the issue.
Might be where he's going -- he's clever enough to think that way. But the fact remains that the man has burned through his welcome from the vast majority of non-Greens, and we can't wait for him to finally leave the stage. We'll certainly support anything that takes away some of his unjust powers.
Allowing these wolves to destory the livihoods of people is not in the best interests of your country, or mine.
Put some reality into the equation and quit lying to make your point.
Your moose are going because of wolves, not habitat destruction. Keep pretending, and you will be looking at no moose in the future.
The real issue here is whether people like you have the right to destory other wildlife populations and livihoods for people for the sake of these killers.
Whats the matter, Robert? Can't stand it that even your neighbors don't agree with you?
The 10j provision of the ESA is a management provision relating to geographically isolated populations of an endangered or threatened species, nothing more. Politically, the 10j provision is a compromise that assumed that a reintroduced species such as the wolf would gain more support from locals if it could be controlled, an option not available under normal ESA designation. That assumption has proven false.
Be that as it may, without the 10j provision, wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone would have been placed under the full protection of the ESA, regardless of where the individual wolves came from. The ESA did not and does not restrict the source of individuals for restoration programs, to include "foreign" countries such as Canada.
Indeed, wolves had been coming into the States from Canada for years. That's why wolves in NW Montana that entered from Canada on their own four feet have always been under the full protection of the ESA.
When are you going to do your homework before making absurd, factually incorrect statements? Your credibility has long since slipped to negative numbers.
RH
I am a scientist. My neighbors are not. Science matters a hell of lot more than politics or ideology.
The facts do not support your claim that wolves are wiping out either moose and elk, either here or elsewhere in the ecosystem. The facts do support my claim that moose habitat is degraded and decadent. The facts do support my claim that the Wiggins Fork Elk Herd is at or over objective, which is why we continue to see late season cow-calf hunts here.
As I said, you can find the facts on the G&F;website in the Job Completion Reports for each species. If you're too lazy to look into the facts, that's your problem, not mine.
RH
Any research done by prowolf biologists is suspect. I do now hold scientists (as you call yourself) in high regard in any sense of the word. Nor do I think you know much more than the common man who spends much more time out actually seeing what is left to see of wildlife.
The problem with people like yourself is that you cannot see people in the equation. You want your natural system to be competely natural; which of course it cannot be with people living in the area.
But there is really not much sense talking to someone who thinks they are an "expert" on a topic they have already made their minds up about.
When the last moose is gone from wolf predation, many will be looking for people like you to blame for it, be sure of that, and they will be right.
Afterall, there is no money for research into wolves without a controversy.
Facts conjoured up magically about how all those elk and moose disappeared because of a lack of habitat. Ridiculous at best.
I'm going to try one more time. Wyoming G&F;Herd Unit Reports are located here: http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/index.asp. We are in the Lander Region.
Prove me wrong.
I'll close with a quotation from Fritz' website (http://www.windrivermountainoutfitters.com/hunting.html):
"We have had over a 90% kill on bulls for many years with about 50% being 6 points."
We conduct most of our elk hunts from our wilderness base camp. It is very comfortable with a large cook tent and several wall tents supplied with cots, pads and wood stoves and more. Wolves have not been a problem for our camp....yet."
Sounds to me as if Fritz' elk hunting is going pretty well so far.
RH
You can make any claim you want, but the truth is, there is no evidence of over browsing in either place, by either species.
When it comes to credibility, someone who has lived off the public their entire life and perpetuates the federal takeover of everything that rightly belongs to the states, I would say that kind of take away your failed claims that you and you alone in your area claim.
And again I see you are throwing more misinformation. The 10(j) wasn't about acceptance, it was about providing management WHEN their predator began impacting the people who lived in the area they chose to dump them in. The introduced wolves were required to be kept separate, which means the USFWS dumping 'problem' wolves into the area of NW Montana violated the ESA, if in fact there were truly wolves in that area, which there is very very limited and questionable evidence of. So, are the wolves in the NW and North of I-90 truly migrants? Or descendants of Ed's troubled dogs?
And again, any study put out in the recent years is more than suspect as we have never witnessed so much outcome based BS presented as 'science', most of these studies can be easily seen through by anyone with even limited common sense and any real outdoor experience. When 80 years of science has been completely rewritten with 15 years of short studies, one has to take it all with a grain of salt.
As time passes by what we seen coming forth is that the old science is proving far more accurate than anything recent.
And Robert, it isn't anything special to see short term burst in localized hunting as wolves push elk into smaller regions and out of others. Nice try though, but in 5 years or less, it will be toast, just as we have seen across Idaho. We have two more elk management zones in trouble this year for a total of 6 and the rest in decline, even if currently in the rewritten objectives.
And big sky, you are very correct, I keep a running list of names of those responsible and those who push this agenda on people. When the moose are gone, in the very near future, and the elk are in serious trouble. I wonder if the likes of Bob will even be capable of admitting they were so wrong. Somehow I suspect they'll just reach into their global warming grab bag of excuses.
I guess he is willing to ignore the scientist's that have found wolves to be the main cause of the declines and inabilities to recover of the Idaho elk herd.
Yeah.......I guess Robert is the all knowing. What a joke.
Barrt, Nice try there pal. Both deer and elk numbers are meeting management objectives in most parts of the state in Idaho. It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah, you just loving posting misinformation, don't ya Barry.
I suggest while the snow is still all over the place and those elk are at their usual wintering grounds IDFG fly it all and put this "100,000 " elk on video for all to see, then we'll see who is right. The imagination models, or the boots on the ground and tires on the road, with eyes that see. And minds that know they've been lied to.
Somebody had best see to it a few Ombudsman flies with em to keep the lying down to a minimum.
Come to Idaho and buy those elk tags, it's all good ya hear !
How many moose were counted in the greater yellowstone ecosystem this winter? Last year it was 114, down from 1200 in 1995. How many more years before that population is zero? I certainly hope that does not happen, but it is now in the realm of possibility. The 100 or so wolves in the greater yellowstone ecosystem still have some elk to eat, but it makes you wonder that the occasional moose they find is much easier prey. Due to the fact that there are still elk to eat, it appears that if indeed moose are easier to prey on and the number of elk still left in the park will allow the wolf population to stay at a higher level. Moose could be doomed.
Allowing biologists to play god is not a good thing to do......
Do you not possess the ability to read, or do you simply not have the ability to understand simple English. Last Year we had 4 zones below objective, this year we have six, just as I stated. Then notice how they jump to the bull count but dodge the cow situation in all other units, that although meet the current objectives, are declining.
One also has to consider that all of the elk management zone objectives were rewritten and every one of them is far lower than the previous plan. One also has to consider that IDFG hasn't even conducted their counts this year, the skewing of numbers and the tweaking of their computer model. You can bet your last doughnut that they will push the count up as much as they can get away with.
Which also exposes yet another issue with game departments and our beloved scientist. Undulant numbers are always estimated higher and wolf numbers are always forced down in the methods of counting.
As far as Dug Smith, he has promised an increase in the Northern YS herd this year. I have the clip of the interview he made that promise on. I would suspect at this point, even if they have to resort to midnight wolf removals, they will. Unless they really think they can convince people of micro climate change. But, there are a large population of shallow thinkers that just drink up the garbage being thrown out there by these people without ever taking a deeper look, so they may try that. They throw out a lot of bs to see what sticks.
--big sky
So, big sky, who should be allowed to play game management god?
Hunters?
Conservative, flat-earth politicians?
And on what basis should they make decisions?
Wishing-will-make-it-so harkening back to the "good old days?"
Paranoid hunches?
Coffee klatch, bar-stool yammering by the biggest loud-mouth?
Or science that stands up to peer review?
Are scientists perfect? No. But the process of peer review is a more reliable process toward truth than the exaggerations, distortions, myths, spin and don't-bother-me-with-facts used by the wolf haters.
You guys assume that wolves, and only wolves must be to blame for declining herd counts.
You assume that wolves will eradicate elk, deer and moose -- contrary to biology and conservation history.
You assume that wolves will destroy the livestock industry.
Other than fevered anecdotes and bar talk, you got nothing.
That's nothing more than asking one like minded moron if they think the other moron is right.
The sad truth is, science had been bastardized to the point it can not longer be considered science.
Science use to be asking the question, conducting valid and repeatable experiments, and accepting the answer without opinion.
It is now, I have the answer, how do I conduct a study to prove it. Modern wildlife biology has been turned into a complete joke, and yes, that pisses me off, because there is nothing function to gain from it. Outcome based studies have no validity and it doesn't matter who may agree with it.
I am not a wolf advocate, nor an anti-wolf advocate. I am an advocate for the truth. And in searching for that truth and trying to validate it has show me some of the most atrocious BS I have ever witnessed trying to be pushed off as science.
Peer review, yeah, they have shot holes in that bucket now too.
When science is no longer relevant, the American dream has gone dark.
Critical thinking and considered opinion are also failing. Obviously. These comment forums are Exhibit A.
The very fact they now want to change them to fully "endangered" protection when there are thousands of them reveals the true agenda is control of people and what they do.
Your reading of history is faulty.
Worse, your allusion to wolves being an instrument of money and power is a DELUSION , Todd. Typical of you , though. Never let the facts muddy a good waking Daymare.
Molloy's redress of the 10(j) rule will bring some clarity, one way or the other. And thankfully , it will not be Money and Power ( as vested in the Stockgrower's and other special interest groups) going down the road with their best buddy Ignorance driving Molloy's thinking process.
Science is a good thing when used properly, as Barry described it above, agenda driven science is for fools. Science can be used to bring forth truth, and it can be used to bring forth agenda driven results for the power grasping of dictators.
All of those OTHER countries do not allow critical thought. And this country is fast approaching the same decline in Individual free critical thought and expression, you Dewey and others of your ilk are living proof of that. You protest critical thought while claiming only yourself is capable of critical thought. You bore the hell out me you little twit.
Progressivism
"1) A political philosophy advocating change and progress, especially as led by " science." Colloquially, a "progressive" refers to a very liberal person.
Agenda driven political science has very little truth.
The prior system of management worked, YOU are breaking it, permanently.
We can see this and are refuting your desired change.
Conservatism
1) The disposition to preserve tradition and resist change. 2) A political philosophy calling for reduced government and greater individual freedom in the private sector.
Your WELL of Scientific data is partial truth, tainted with deception.
Dewey is just another result of the 10th Plank "public schools" which trained his young mind to work for the perpetual communist debt system that enriches the World Bank, another name for that is the Department of " Education" Indoctrination in reality. The NEA and Outcome Based " Education.."
More dicta he believes in, right out of Karl's Manifesto;
" There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc.., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes all religion, and morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." (establishment rigged up scientific dogma)
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists." (Destroy the free market capatilism, Private Property Rights, and give the corporate collecticists capaitalists our resources, and no more family.)
" The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities." (tear down the hunting heritage, by any scientific dogma possible).
This clown Dewey is a dead corporation serving a corporate institution not recognizing him as a human, and he has the balls to talk about education ?
The only true science the common man can look at is if he visits winter ranges and actually knows how many elk used the range in the past. It is even getting harder to find data on that.
The problem with people like mikey is that he cares little for other people or thier livihoods. Wolves, Wolves, Wolves, the scrounge of the west.
Of couse, this will invite the inevetable comment that people cause all destruction......wolf advocates, environmentalists, whatever, they are all nonpeople and should be treated that way.
Bioligists should not play god, inkless. They should not have planted mysis(?) shrimp into flathead lake, thus destorying the kokenee salmon runs and the the annual feast by eagles now lost because of bad science.
In the same sense, people should not play god either, as is witnessed by the introduction of walleye into Canyon Ferry lake. If those walleye migrate up the missoure to the jefferson, galliton, and madison, they have the potential to destory all of that trout fisher, thousands upon thousands of miles of trout streams, all the way into yellowstone.
The wolves were a bad idea, and are still a bad idea. When the last moose is gone from yellowstone mikey, you had better make up some good excuses as to why. (less than 100 left now....)
I propose that we talk all federal land and open it up to homesteading again. In this way, we can get people back on the land farming and caring for the environment. There is much BLM land that could be divided into 160 (or more) acre plots that would allow many folks an opportunity to earn a living. Many new towns would sprout up and business for our country would boom.
This solution would even make the liberals happy because we could make for much more room for immigrants. Many of these immigrants would jump at the chance for free land.
Wolves are and always will be a bad idea mike, regardless of what you pretend to know.
What we do know is that where ever wolves are found for any length of time, all other wildlife suffers, and we are witnessing this in yellowstone now, and in every other area that these canadian wolves have colonized. We may completly lose the moose population in yellowstone.
Hmmmm, funny how we always had moose before canadian wolves were introduced. Appears that these larger wolves are to well suited for killiong our smaller than canadian moose.
Maybe they should collar or emplant every single moose left in yellowstone. That should not be to hard to do with so few left. Then lets see how many starved to death from lack of food and how many became wolf scat. Of course, with the made up science from fellas like Mr. Hoskins you cannot believe a word of what comes out of thier research. First thing to ask a biologist is the question "who is funding your study?". That will tell you what the results will be right off the start.
You mean government called for that, the same government you enjoy licking up to.
They wasted the Buff also, to destroy the Native American Heretic Savages. Steal or destroy the resource and you control the indigenous rural people, 1870s- 1995 to 2011, no difference, nothing has changed.
You Mike are the modern day model of the 1870s progressive screaming to get rid of the heathen savages. The self motivated self sustaining, none independent survivors are your enemy.
You're nothing but traitor to mankind.
I'm guilty of Striving after rational scientific knowledge and insisting upon scientific integrity. Agenda driven sciences leading to regulatory domination of human action, has no credibility nor integrity, this science of today is taking truth and twisting it to suit the purpose of enslavement of man.
The entent is and always has been to cheat man out of his identity, and to cheat man out of his link to the past, hunting, real history, and ownership of resources wealth, the worst crimes man is guilty of in my opinion, wars and deaths have been another aspect of this fraud etc, etc.
There is always some degree of error in science. Some variable that is unaccounted for or that cannot be controlled. There will always be things that happen in science that are unexpected. Science is not perfect. Otherwise it would have come up with one solution everyone agreed on.
That is why so many do not agree with this so-called science you wolf lovers are pushing onto them. The errors and intentional sabotage involved are blatantly clear. And your snotty arrogance and self rightious we are right and you are all stupid mentality's so often displayed by YOU are disgusting to say the least. Keep up your insults and censorship, keep up with the pick pocketing of the gullible, and offering no disclosure of the actions of those free funds.
Keep on with the willful ignorance while helping disguised corporate interests swindle all of us out of these lands and resources, we'll arrive at a place in the not to distant future, and you'll be the first to scream out " This is not what we meant" of course not, it's what those conmen meant who sunk you with their rotten sciences. We see you people for what you are, a cracked and chipped none transparent stained glass window.
Come on little fishy ! Isn't it about time for you to be calling me a child stalker ?
I cannot agree habitat loss is why the moose are suffering so many losses. Do some transects, make some conclusions based on them, but the overall picture is lost.
Habitat loss? I know of several places in Montana where moose abound where people have sudivided many sections. If anything, it provided more brouse for them. It must have, there are more there now than ever before. Of course, that has changed now that wolves abound in the area.....
This fire thing these fellas keep bringing up.....if anything, fires produce more forage for moose than what was there before. I don't buy it.
His "facts" are not what I hear from the people I care about....the people most affected by this experiment gone bad.
Who said anything about wiping out wolves? We want some control, but keep it up and enough folks are gonna say to heck with wolves period. You better convince the people who actually live there that they are godlike animals. Said it once, and will say it again....when the first person gets killed by a wolf, the game is over.
No one in any of the 3 states killed any more wolves than you did, nor than anyone living in Virginia did. This idea that a few people and a LOT of elk and moose have to pay the bill you think is due for what your ancestors did is ridiculous.
I will admit my great great grandparent carved their names on Independence Rock, but I do not know if they dared kill a wolf to save a cow or horse or not.
Only a liberal could come up with such nonsense to justify destroying elk and moose herds to get even with those mythical folks form the past.
Dewey: First your attempt to play down reality and claim I am the reason science today is a pile of dung, is typical. You once again seem to want to claim all people opposed to you as idiots. Well pal, I would bet I probably have a far higher level of education than you do. And one thing I learned while earning my degree, it that there are plenty of morons that come out of the modern education system with letters by their names. Science has been bastardized, no one is to blame for that but the people who bastardized it. And anyone unable to see through the reality of that, has no place calling anyone stupid.
And I see you also make the typical talking point claims concerning wolves. Does it make no difference to you that you were lied to? Are you so opposed to the reality that what you were sold was in fact a lie? Case in point, the YS elk herd populations. You are still making the claim that YS was over populated, when there is very clear evidence that it wasn't.
The very day YS opened, the Norther herd of YS was estimated at 12,000 - 14,000 elk. In the history of the park that herd only ever dropped below 10k on two occasions. In the 1960's when the park slaughtered thousands of elk in a population control scam. And NOW!
Even before the native wolves were eradicated by the government you love so much, remember hunters didn't kill off wolves, the government did, Yellowstone contained in about 300% more elk than it now has. they will not recover as YS is locked down in a predator pit created out of worshipers of failed science.
Same line of BS concerning over grazing and the alder and willow issue. That study was conducted 40 years ago, and over grazing was eliminated as a cause. The fact that YS now has the lowest elk numbers in known history and the willows and aspens are not recovering. I would say they got it right, and the over grazing crowd got it wrong. You see, the evidence is there, if one is only willing to look. yet you people just keep spewing the same old tired lines even after the failures are shown.
Same line of BS concerning genetic connectivity. Geezus man, if you can't see through that lie, you have got to be completely blind about that too. Isle Royale has been clicking along for 50 years on the DNA of three wolves. And as Mech pointed out in his testimony, they are showing no ill effects from it. Yet the claim is still made out here, amazing.
Only one thing has happened, bad science. The fallacy of natural balance is so failing right before your eyes, you must be incapable of logical thought to not see it. Seriously, go study the history of elk populations of YS before you just digest some garbage put out by some government goon looking for a cushy lifetime job.
Mike: The species was never wiped out, it was never endangered and any claims of that rely on ignoring every fact in this debacle. In fact, they had to prove the wolf wasn't endangered before they were allowed to remove them from Canada. This is nothing but a argument over who you are willing to cause hardship on. You don't give two shits about wolves, you only care about being as hostile to the people who are now forced to live with this unchecked predator as you can be.
Every one of your statement screams that fact out. I am always amazed at how many haters are pro wolf people, hateful of their fellow citizens and their country. I have exactly zero use for people like you. You are a simpleton who would support a simple majority democracy in this country. Ignorant of history and ignorant of facts, ignorant of constitutional content and values. I rest assured your day will come. Nuff said.
You do not disappoint.
Plus ca change...
I'm checking out of this thread. Had enough Marx Brothers for two days.
bye
People and wolves do not coexist well, as we are witnessing now....
Clearly, scientists and biologists have found of pot of gold in this wolf issue......if it gets resolved, the pot of gold disappears. No more books about the magical wolf, not much grant money, studies will be curtailed....the rainbow will evaporate.
Actual facts and science have played little part in the wolf importation form the beginning. There was no attempt at all to even come close to the number of wolves originally in Yellowstone, I suspect a part of that was an attempt to eliminate the food producers outside of the Park and the hunters.
Todd Wilkinson, journalist, naturalist, wolf advocate (it appears that way) bison advocate, etc. etc. Came from ummm Minnesota and set up shop in Bozeman. Have written several books and I read one article you had something to do with concerning some fella running cattle on a grazing area that has wolves and griz on it. From the flavor of that discussion, you were in favor of removing the cattle and taking more land out of production for hard working people. I guess some might call you a radical enviromental writer. At least you are a runner. I have alot of respect for runners.
See my point?
Maybe take into consideration the people who are trying to make a living on the land. Not everyone has a journalistic career and the luxury of pecking on a computer to make a living.
Oh, sorry about the "nuts" comment. Thats about as far as I go with the "potshots". I admit I have used the term "wolfhugger" and "bison worshipper" at times, but just in jest.
The "nuts" comment came from a historical comment given to the germans during the battle of the bulge. It describes a feeling of being surrounded but never giving up. Sort of like how alot of folks out here feel towards the environmental movement. Just seemed fitting at the time.
I will admit I am an expert in nothing, and do not profess to be. But as we argue this war across the three states, it appears that the losers are the wildlife and the people, as we are witnessing in yellowstone, the lolo region, the bitterroots, and who knows how many other areas will be affected in the future.
People are in the equation, whether you like it or not.
When you write things like this, one can only imagine what else you have made-up, paraphrased or lifted completely out of context.
"Isle Royale has been clicking along for 50 years on the DNA of 3 wolves. And Mech has pointed out in his testimony they are showing no ill effects of it."
Mech made no such comment about Isle Royale wolves, but di talk about the interconnectivity of wolves in the NRM as probably providing enough of a conduit to prevent inbreeding.
Back to Isle Royale:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402171440.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=wolf-packs-in-jeopardy-2009-04-07
Please do some research. I know you have posted about Isle Royale wolves doing just fine genetically elsewhere, but the fact is, it's been known for quite some time about the affects of inbreeding on Isle Royale wolves. Mech and Peterson(who has carried on Isle Royale research) keep in contact with one another. So please tell us where is your support for what you write about Isle Royale?
Just one more
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/wolfbones.html
Oh heck, how about one more.
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/news/media_relations/849/documents/1.pdf
Why don't you ask the same of Dewey, Jeff E, "real Mike," Immer, Coyote, blah blah?
So while I agree with you, please keep in mind that the world cuts both sides on anonymous slaggery.
Again, you make failed claims and attempt to stand on exactly the failed science we have been discussing in this thread. When someone like Dr. David Mech stands up in court, under oath and states this, I think it very much makes my case. It takes a lot for a man who has been studying wolves as long as Dr. Mech has to state something like this in COURT! I have done my research sweetheart, I just don't buy into the garbage science that isn't proving reliable.....
"No genetically effective immigration has been
found in the closed Isle Royale (IR) wolf population for 50 years, yet the population
persists at the same range of levels (12-50, average about 25/per year) as it has for 50
years. In fact the Isle Royale wolf population is informative for several reasons.
Contrary to the 3 NRM wolf populations it was founded by only 1 female and 1 or 2
males (Wayne et al. 1991) and has inbred for 50 years. The IR wolves look and act like
any other wolves, prey successfully on one of the species’ largest prey animals, the
moose (Alces alces), and survive at as high a level as any other wolf population. It has
6
Case 9:08-cv-00056-DWM Document 37 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 6 of 22
even withstood a bout of canine parvovirus for decades (Peterson et al. 1998; Fuller et al.,
2003:189-190.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Response to Wayne Declaration
14. Based on my long history and experience studying wolves in Yellowstone and throughout the world, I disagree with several of the conclusions drawn by Dr. Wayne’s Declaration. Dr. Wayne’s conclusion that “an effective metapopulation dynamic . . . has yet to be achieved” in the Northern Rockies is based on data collected from 1995-2004 from only a fraction of the actual population. Wayne Decl. at ¶3. More recent data demonstrates connectivity between the YNP population and wolves elsewhere in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Moreover, the life span of wolves in the wild is at least 13 years (Mech 1988), and they breed from ages 2 (sometimes 1 year of age) – 13. The fact that no “genetically effective immigration of wolves to YNP” was found for a 10-year period from 1995-2004, Wayne Decl. at ¶3, is neither relevant nor important to
long-term wolf persistence.” Mech Case No. cv-08-56-M-DWM (emphasis mine)
His entire testimony can be seen here: http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Declaration_L_David_Mech.pdf
I am sorry, but it is exactly situations that drove me to the position I now stand on. When a man of his position and experience testifies in court, that testimony holds a lot of validity. I have also noted how the pro wolf science generators have began to ignore him as soon as he began stating the truth. I can only imagine how angry they were when he did in under oath.
Don't you find it just a little too convenient that the crap you posted was released right on the heels of Mech's testimony. Those people will do anything or put put anything to keep their cash cow alive and listed.
They have simply run out of excuses and they now face people who have seen beyond their smoke screen. They have overplayed their scam to the point that even politicians are seeing through it, and sweetheart, that takes one pile of corruption to accomplish.
The moose populatuion is not dropping due to drought,fires,or any lack of riparian habitat-the numbers are dropping due to wolf predation-another FACT ignored by the pro-wolf people.
The gray wolf is not an endangered species-there are plenty of them in several U.S. states in the lower 48,and even more in Alaska,there are plenty of wolves in Canada-the species is in ZERO danger of going extinct,and needs to be managed.
The wolves are here,they are not going away-but the population needs to be kept in check. The wolf does not need,and should not have the protection of the ESA,there are many packs in the three states that have the reintroduced wolves-far,far more than the original agreement of 300 animals or 30 breeding pairs-the wolf huggers want more,and more,and more wolves-fine-start introducing them in the east-NY,Pa, Maine,WVa, NC,Va,release them all along the Appalachian trail,they can eat the hikers.
Not calling him a perjurer at all. He said the Isle Royale population persists, you misquoted him as saying the Isle Royale wolves show no ill effects from it. Two entirely different conclusions.
I provided four sources for you, there are more that will show you that the ill effects, as concluded by scientists in the field, are very real.
The stuff I posted has been well known prior to Mech's testimony, so no, it was not posted on the heels of Mech's testimony. Look at the dates that the studies provided.
And as far as Mech saying the genetic health of wolves in the NRM would be fine, I have never argued that point, as long as interconnectivity of wolf territory remains open.
I've put facts out there, you cherry pick what fits your position, and even change wording to fit your position more.
Mech, from the same testimony
"In contrast, Isle Royale lies 25 km from the mainland, is rarely connected to the mainland and has only received immigrants once in 51 years, and they failed to reproduce. The Isle Royale wolves have reduced genetic variation including N[sub:e] of 3.8, 60% loss of neutral genetic variation, 50% loss of protein variation, 13% increase in inbreeding coefficient per generation, and skeletal deformities from inbreeding and genetic drift that are consistent with the population's history. Whether these factors reduced individuals' fitness is uncertain but is a reasonable hypothesis. Nevertheless, despite inbreeding, the population has survived, the ultimate test."
Yes, he was quoted as saying the population has survived...but he also sited the data about the effects of inbreeding becoming more and more available to the general public, that even though the wolves have "persisted".
You stated Mech as saying the wolves show no ill effect from ~60 years of inbreeding. He did not.
If you want to discuss these issues, and remain
The only one who is "bastardizing" the science is you, and I am most certainly not your "sweetheart.
Before you get too comfortable with Mech quotes, here are two more. Throw these around to your acolytes.
"The wolf is neither man's competitor nor his enemy. He is a fellow creature with whom the earth must be shared." -L. David Mech
"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
"The prior, 100-year-old policy of extinguising any fire, regardless of its cause, permitted an unprecedented buildup of fallen deadwood. The winter of 1987-88 and the spring and summer of 88 were extremely dry. Three of the five fires originated outside the park, and burned their way into it.
45% of the park was burned, but only 18% of its forests were destroyed.
With few exceptions, these burned areas began began to regenerate within weeks. Firewee, the most common plant to return after a fire, began to appear, and most of the burned areas are now dense meadows, luch with grasses, clover, bushes, and a suprising number of young pine trees.
These areas are a boom to der and elk, and many of the small ground mammals that populatie the park. They now have a much more abundant supply of the round cover on which they subsist.
Some "experts" states that due to the intense heat of th fires, some areas would never regenerate and were sterilized. Today those "sterile" areas are showing new growth
I always wondered how those moose ate those old pine trees BEFORE the fires.
It appears that after the fires there should be more ample vegetation for moose to survive.
Funny how we are down to 114 moose in 2010 from 1200 in 1995 while habitat is now BETTER than it was before 1990....
Only one thing has changed for the moose since that time....only one thing.....
I copied and pasted that right out of his testimony. And I included the link to his entire testimony, pretty hard to 'misquote' do that.
The two quotes of his you so kindly provided were from a long time past. One thing about Dr. Mech, he asked the question and over time has evaluated those questions and has since changed his position based on those observations.
So you can dredge up the long past and try to claim them as current, but they aren't.
His recent observations have caused him to very seriously question 'natural balance'. It was what was taught to him in acquiring his degree so it would be natural for him to assume that. But close to 50 years of work have proven to him otherwise.
He has recently questioned the 'trophic cascade' theory also. Just because someone is willing to accept that their original belief has been proven incorrect by research doesn't make him a hack, but a scientist. It is when one stick to the theory and attempts to prove it at any cost, that it becomes bastardized.
So much of the outcome based science can be easily seen through. A perfect example being the study to 'prove' wolves weren't causing the catastrophic elk loses in Yellowstone. They conducted a 90 study, which just happened to coincide with the short time period that grizzly bear prey on elk, then pulled up tent stakes and ignored the other nine months of the year, and concluded that bears are the main predator of elk. That is such a shallow and obviously skewed study even a fool could see through it. And it is but one, of hundred of studies that have been conducted for the sole purpose of exonerating wolves at any cost.
I have never claim wolves an enemy, only those who use them as a tool to push their money or emotionally driven agenda.
So you can keep throwing out you one liners from times past, or you can recognize the mans transition of opinion over time he acquired through observation.
When looking at Dr. Mech's testimony you have to also consider the math he used in comparison. The genetic base used in the NRM would take hundreds of years to even thin down to the current genetic inbreeding at Isle Royale, if ever, and the fact they have shown no real effect from it pretty much makes the genetic connectivity claims completely invalid.
The simple fact remains, that none of the big players that have been touted out for all these years as experts still claim that wolves should still be protected or are endangered in any way. It was an invalid position in the first place, but there really isn't a leg to stand on anymore.
It is simply time to delist them, give the management over to the states where it rightly belongs anyway, and move on. All the bad science in the world isn't going to change that fact.
"
Experimental Populations
In 1982 Congress added the concept of experimental populations to the ESA as
a way of reintroducing species without severe restrictions on the use of private and
public land in the area.
38
Experimental population designations are sometimes
referred to as Section 10(j) rules. The practice allows introduction of a species
outside its current range to restore it to its historic range.
Two criteria must be met for an experimental population to comply with the
law. First, DOI must have authorized the release of the population. Second, the
population must be wholly separate geographically from other animals of that
species.
39
Congress required the separation so that the introduced population could
be clearly distinguished.
Members of an experimental population are considered to be threatened under
the act, and thus, can have special rules written for them.
40
In fact, Congress referred
to special rules for experimental populations as a way to reduce public opposition to
the release of certain species, using the red wolf as an example.
41
Congress suggested
in a report that the special regulations could allow killing members of the species:
The committee fully expects that there will be instances where the regulations
allow for the incidental take of experimental populations .... The committee also
expects that, where appropriate, the regulations could allow for the directed
taking of experimental populations. For example, the release of experimental
populations of predators, such as red wolves, could allow for the taking of these
animals if depredations occur or if the release of these populations will continue
to be frustrated by public opposition.
42
Unlike DPSs, experimental populations may not necessarily have the same
protections under the ESA. FWS will first determine whether the experimental
population is of a species that is in imminent danger of extinction. That decision is
based on whether the loss of the population would appreciably diminish the species’
prospect for survival. If so, the experimental population is deemed essential and is
treated as an endangered species. Currently, there are no essential experimental
populations. If it is deemed nonessential, the experimental population is treated as
a species that is proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. There is no critical
habitat designation for an experimental population if it is nonessential. Also, federal
actions that may take a member of the population do not require a Section 7
consultation under the ESA, unless the species is in a national wildlife refuge or a
national park.
Examples of species with nonessential experimental populations are the
Colorado pikeminnow (or squawfish), the southern sea otter, the gray wolf in the
Southwest and in the Yellowstone area, the black-footed ferret, and the whooping
crane.
the eye opener here is the " Also, federal
actions that may take a member of the population do not require a Section 7
consultation under the ESA, unless the species is in a national wildlife refuge or a
national park."
would this not mean that malloy is trying an end run the wolves in ynp in an effort to try to get wyoming to bow to his interpitation of the law since wolves outside any refuge or fed park would be immune to malloys tinkering under the current law.
Yes, you misquoted Mech
Nowhere in that testimony does it say Isle Royale wolves are showing no ill effects from inbreeding. It says they persist. The 4 sites I gave you tell you there are ill effects form genetic bottle necking. Mech has admitted as much, but then says, yes, the wolves still persist. He does not say, I repeat, does not say the wolves show no ill effects from inbreeding. They have shown very real effect, as the studies/necropsies of IR wolves have shown. This is in and has been in response to your 2/9/11 post here, and elsewhere where you have made the same claim
Also, I have no arguement with genetic bottlenecking in the NRM states. I don't think I have ever brought that up. I do believe though it would be in the best interest of all wildlife in the NRM that genetic corridors must be maintained, including wolves.
The Isle Royale wolves have reduced genetic variation including
Ne of3.8, 60% loss of neutral genetic variation, 50% loss of protein variation, 13%increase in inbreeding coefficient per generation, and skeletal deformities from inbreeding and genetic drift that are consistent with the population’s history.*** Whether these factors reduced individuals’ fitness is uncertain but is a reasonable hypothesis.***Nevertheless, despite inbreeding, the population has survived, the ultimate test.
Mech March 2010
Consistent with the 4 sites I gave you
You have misquoted Mech
Yes the IR wolves have shown inbreeding. But consider they were laboratoried and have been completely and totally isolated ever since establishing themselves for FIFTY Freaking Years. From a handful?
That's like the Romanovs. But if you plug in a Tudor or two, whole different game.
The IR population could be "fixed" with a tankful of whirlybird gas or one whackin-cold winter. But IR has value now as a true representation of genuine inbreeding consequences. At some time the experiment should be ended, of course, either they will all die, or man will call an end.
All real population scientists know that, it is cake to head off inbreeding with a very small number of dispersers, or transported animals. That was done in Florida to save the panthers....a couple Texans got dropped in.
One or two per generation is all it would take, if not natural, then certainly through transport of a hot young female. That is done with G-bears all the time and works great, with no objections from any G-bear lovers.
Why can't the same thing work with wolves? No good answer there.
Greens are on the wrong side of science on this one, and people are figuring it out toot sweet. No matter Molloy's legal gymnastics, wolves are on the way off the list, and hopefully their departure will be permanent.
Nowhere did Mech say the implications of inbreeding were affecting the wolves survival. I will let his testimony stand on it's own two feet. Somehow I doubt you are willing to do that. You can try to stand on claiming a misquote or you can prove his testimony incorrect.
His testimony has completely undermined the claimed genetic connectivity issue in the NRM wolves. It also showed the fallacy in the claim hunting them would harm them and he testified to the need of much larger population reductions to maintain wolf populations than any wolf advocacy group could choke down.
And with the irony not being lost on me, he has been ignored by these groups intent on keeping the wolves listed. He was there god for years, now, completely ignored.
Which is just another perfect example of the money mongers being unwilling to use anything that doesn't benefit their income. The tides are turning and the loons that keep insisting on overreaching are losing ground by their own actions.
The best thing they could have done was let it lay when they were delisted and under management of scientifically failed wolf management plans. Those plans were completely failed in managing wolves in any valid manner. But it's hard to make money under that situation, even if the wolves would have prospered beyond reason. You see, it isn't about wolves for groups like DoW and the CFBD, it is simply about money, money, money.
Now.....well, Idaho is out from under that BS plan, finally. My greatest fear was that we would be stuck with it. Now we are back to the original number, which will be plenty to insure wolves in Idaho without them destroying the entire ecosystem. Everybody wins, wolves and other wildlife, hunters, citizens, everyone. Well, except the biologist's and AR groups pilfering money from it.
While many of the people I work with were out of their minds the day Molloy ruled, I wasn't. It was just solid proof that even the created science wasn't being used anymore, and in the end these wolves are going to end up exactly where I predicted they would over a year and a half ago. Don't ever say Dr. Mech didn't try to save his wolves, he did, it was just that no one was going to listen.
A Deal is a Deal!
Rockholm has no facts, not one. only some kind of Machiavellian rhetoric that losers always resort too. Trot out your lawsuit or STFU.
Tom Remington couldn't nail a harlem whore. If you want a text book example of Cherry picking facts the PPP blog would be the dictionary definition.
Barry Coe-another nobody.
This is just another perfect example of the uninformed spewing their talking points without knowledge. I am sure the reference was to 50 CFR Part 17, which is a legally binding entry into the federal register that even the USFWS referred to as "The Final Rule" and it outlined the legal definitions of non essential, experimental areas and recovery goals, control measures and legal responsibilities of the USFWS and the states, and the recovery numbers. It is not the EIS.
So, Jeffy, maybe before you open your pie hole, you should get a few facts straightened out. Idiots, I swear.......
Note to all. This will be my last entry into this thread. The standard operating procedures of drawing people into the simple antics of name calling rants to get threads shut down and valid comments sections removed. Sorry Jeffy, I have passed the word to not play your childish game. Later........
I hope those who are looking for valid information, read, think and do some of you own research before just buying into talking points bunk that has been put out by those who are using this issue for personal income at the detriment of everyone else.
You need to get caught up. Rockholm is Scott Rockholm, Rockholm 66. Certainly not anonymous by any stretch.
Molloy is certainly as described. Before he was appointed, he was carrying a case for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, one of Ralph Nader's creations, which his biographer wrote was intended to "forge new public policy in the process" of litigation. That's pretty activist, certainly Naderite? Not of the Right, fer shure.
Molloy is smart, competent, clever, creative, but he is a Naderite whack job, and Baucus bears the blame for suggesting him to President Clinton, and further making a deal with Trent Lott to pry him loose from a hold.
The Lincoln County commission finally called Molloy appropriately. He's a "social and economic disaster." And how. In a way, his gymnastics have been good, because now Congress is really upset, and so are voters.
In some places in the world he would be shot for that . If only...
Typical S. Rockholm. He negates his own credibility , when his lousy video production hasn't already done so ( that's an informed opinion , by the way , not a libel . His videos really are awful. ).
Meanwhile the magic lawsuit is nowhere to be seen, going on 4+ years that I know of.
When she made the mistake of calling an Outfitter on the phone and threatening her entire family, children, and all IFW members we did some background checks on her. She is friends with all of you, and with major IDFG employees.
I'm proud to know Phil Hart, and he is a real legislature that looks out for his constituents.
Right, Left, or Center, no matter who spews degrading insults, are they really necessary? If this is what "new journalism" has come down to—"a new kind of journalism" being the early slogan once at New West—then it's a failure. Half of these remarks would never pass muster in finding their ways into newspaper print, being screened out based on lack of veracity or because commenters hide behind fictitious identities. People are demanding changes in the nature of the blogosphere because anonymity, without good reason for being anonymous, is a failure; and it's a turnoff to readership. So what if fewer people comment? I'd rather know who's saying what, what their agenda is, and forcing them to stand behind their words, than this shouting from the shadows. I give you credit, Dave, for always using your full name. We may disagree on some things and not others, but we've always been straight with each other and I respect you for that.
Can people forcefully disagree with each other and do it in a smart way so that basic civility doesn't go down the toilet? And the discourse isn't comparable to the scrawled graffiti in a truck stop? Absolutely.
You have to be smart to put words together in an effective way that gets your point across and causes your opponent to stand up and pay attention to what you're saying. Pandering to people who can only be crass—in part because of their cloak of anonymity—is one of the reasons we're losing the ability in this country to be civil. People need to be accountable for what they say, or what's the point?
On one side you have folks who are under constant attack and have every thing they own or have worked for at stake. They are frightened of the power of the enviros in court and resources. I cannot understand the bitter hatred and vitriol directed at the food producers and the deliberate introduction of a protected predator designed to create as many problems as possible for them.
I try never to answer in the manner I am addressed, but I am under attack almost constantly, however I think it is is mandatory that someone stand up for our food producers. I am very concerned when the law apprears to be very one sided as Judge Malloy is, especially when our food and energy supplies are at stake.
I am very concerned for our country's well being, and I am concerned the Global Governance agenda and Agenda 21, the rest of America should too.
Everyone could stand to treat one another here with more respect. Everyone has an opinion and point of view. What's wrong with that? Nothing. If you have a concern about Global Governance and Agenda 21, I don't fault you. But make your case with facts and not mud slinging. If you can connect Molloy to a global conspiracy theory, One World Government etc, then show us proof. I have a similar beef with environmental groups that use hysteria—as in suggesting the imminent destruction of wolves and grizzly bears—as a fundraising mechanism to prey upon the emotions of people who don't know any better.
The problem with lack of civility isn't one side's. It's all sides. My complaint with New West is that it has allowed this free-for-all to go on for far too long.
But I will not retract what I said about Molloy being a Naderite. TLPJ was created for political ends. And they have had an impact, no doubt, in many case the kind of ambulance chasing that blows any sense of propriety or restraint not just out of the water, but past the Moon.
And while I think he is properly complying with a profoundly stupid law (the ESA), there have been other cases where his rulings have taken the wiggle room and slammed fully on the left side of the wiggle. For example, his ruling on weed spraying in the KNF because a bear might hear a helicopter was just egregious.
He's God's gift to environmentalism....not necessarily to the environment. He has left a swath of economic and social upheaval that will remain a long, long time.
Bad law, worse judges, and we have a world that makes no sense.
Jim Beers Event- February 16th, Wednesday at 7:00 p.m.
Jordon Ballroom
Boise, Idaho
Sponsored by: Idaho for Wildlife
Idaho Freedom Works
RMEF
Wolf Introduction is a Criminal Enterprise Based on Scientific Fraud
Hope some of you were able to attend the Seminar this past week in Billings, MT on the same subject.
- that would have been news or at least promoted , but it was...nothing.
Can you tell us more about that ? How did I miss that ?
Your career as a truck stop hostess is none of my business.
It works both ways......
If the topic is " Wolves" , serious discourse and considered opinion in NewWest comment boards seems to disintegrate into spleen-venting polarized bluster after about 25 posts.
Thankfully , wolf mating season is in full swing and dens will be dug in another six weeks, in spite of the worse intentions and the rhetorical rabble of men...
Oh wait...I forgot that you are the guy/gal who claims continually that if we humans aren't seeing an elk herd or two , or not seeing moose where they " should be " , they must not be there at all... as if we humans know anything about the changing patterns of wildlife. I'm pretty sure the late autumn aerial census of elk inside Yellowstone missed seeing a lot of elk. A lot.
here's some raw intel for you , Todd: My retired ecologist friend who goes hiking up the North Fork and elsewhere every week - regardless of weather - shows me a number of photos of wolf activity on Elk Fork, Horse Creek, and elsewhere . Plenty of wolves in with plenty of elk in the wilderness and forest lands, none of either in the settlements in the valley below.
You know what else he shows me? Pictures of headless bull elk carcasses. Nicely chopped off. The cow elk still have their skulls. Skullduggery. The Ivory Trade is alive and well, too.
It is my general sense that the blatant poaching of trophy bull elk is definitely on the upswing in the Cody region . That's probably due to Game & Fish so screwing up the general hunting season for a couple decades, then having to go to Limited Quota hunts in the traditional autumn hunts because the migratory Park elk aren't available before deep winter arrives ( read: climate change). The rubythroated outdoorsy yahoos feel they are entitled to a good bull regardless. And while we're at it, lets SSS a wolf or three.
We don't know what we don't know, Todd. We just think we do.
BTW, Molloy was born and raised and pretty much never left Montana, whereas most of the loudest wolf haters came from elsewhere.
The fact is jsut like the government spent tons of money to help settlers and miners take land away from the American Indian, they are spending tons of money and exerting a lot of power to take land away from the ranchers and give it to the greens.
I don't hate wolves, but I do hate the damage to individual families that green groups are allowed to inflict on private individuals and property.
BTW todd you spew more hatred and venom than anyone, your very delusional period.
don't you mean give it back to the public and wildlife and take it away from wellfare rancher queens such as yourself?
i'm talking about public lands wellfare queen ranchers not private property.
you are a troll, get a life and stop stuffing up every article with your prejudiced, bigoted nonsense.
I'm Dave Skinner, and I approved this message.
It is a serious mistake to dismiss the historical capacity that certain human groups had to thrive and co exist with the environment around them by claiming it's a bygone, mystical, fantasy.
Westerners fancy themselves so brilliant in their attempts to "manage" wildlife these days. And things are much worse now because of it. And yes, fewer numbers of ALL wildlife, Indians, filthier water, air and soil, and rampant weeds is a worse state than historical conditions.
There is no denying it, agriculture is number one. A big part of that is cattle.
I am sure you can get beef from Sourth Americal,or Florida, whereever, but that does not put money intos the pockets of the local people. Cows do.
Letting land sit there to look at is not a good economic way to run anything.
Multleiuse is best, with multiple players.
Back to the ball game.....Control of the wolf population is a necessity for the good of all.
Second, you have already proven that you don't know enough about cattle to voice a credible opinion.
Third, education puts money into local pockets and the cattle business doesn't provide enough paying jobs to be worth luring local people into counting on them.
Fourth, open lands have already proven their economic value, despite the fact that you don't have enough education or credibility to know anything about it. Your credibility as an economist is about the same as your credibility as a rancher; stop misinforming the public.
Fifth, what is "multleiuse" anyway?
Finally, why are you still posting? What does it take to shame you?
This is for Restore Native Grasses. I apologize for this article about Aboriginal Overkill by Dr. Charles Kay being displayed "side-ways." It makes it harder to read. However, this is an excellent article about the HISTORY, of Native American Indians out West, and what Lewis and Clark reported!!!
The United States is flat busted, on the brink of insolvency, and the enviros are still trying to think up ways to put the food producers out of business and turn their land into playgrounds for the idle.
We need every bite of food we can produce and every drop of fuel. Those who wish to give up using either be my guest, but do not try to force others to do what you are unwilling to do.
Nice article, Chandie. I read the Lewis and Clark journals long ago. It appears that at that time there was little game in the mountains and most natives in the Idaho, Washington Oregon area relied heavily on fish.
Funny how managment of game and modern farming has increased our wildlife resources to the point where they are today.
To bad there are a few out there who want to tear it all down.....
I grew up learning our local history from the people who lived it! Lola Clyde would come and visit our classrooms and show us arrowheads, camus roots, teach us Indian words, show us Indian dolls and other artifacts and gifts she exchanged with the Palouse Indians.
My great aunt remembered them digging camus roots down by Paradise Creek on our farm.
I'm very proud of my pioneer relatives. My great grandfather Nels Anders Nelson, built the first railroad from Spokane, WA through Steptoe, Colfax, Pullman, Moscow. In Moscow he met Mary Lind his future bride. Then his contract ended at Julietta/Kendrick.
He was foreman for the first railroad to be built into Moscow, Idaho and the surrounding towns. At that time Moscow, Idaho was 80% Swedish and Norwegian. He got the job because his brother August Nelson and him, buried their farm implements in Moses Lake, and rode to Spokane to bid for a railroad job. Nels was hired as foreman due to his leadership skills, personality, and he could speak Swedish, Norwegian, and German.
Little game was to be found in the mtns historically as most wildlife, like humans lived in valleys and riparian areas. For example what most people think of today as a "mountain animal", the grizzly bear, was historically a lowland valley/prairie occupant.
It was only with "settlement" and extermination that wildlife retreated into less favorable mountain conditions for self preservation. Kind of like the way Indians were sequestered to reservations that in no way resemble their ancestral home ranges.
Todd, you either aren't responding to what I wrote, or you didn't actually read what I wrote. I never suggested turning the country back into wilderness and closing all family farms, no one did. I feel sorry for you if that's what you extrapolated because it shows a serious level of miscomprehension that makes dialogue impossible.
Would you really want to live as a pre-Columbian Plains Indian? No horses, for one thing. No steel. No beer. No computers. No pizza. And do it in North Dakota, right now, with the series of Flaming Blue Arctic Northers they've had the past two months.
Not sure about the thrive part.
They existed, but thrive? That's a relative term.
Wolves kill to survive. Trophy hunters kill for fun. If wolves kill more than they need on occasion, thats THIER freezer they are filling up.
I am afraid some fo these folks are so brain washed that we can never get thru to them that the entire country needs the food and energy produced out here. No one else benefits from their exclusive use of the land to play on.
I grew up on a fourth generation wheat farm south of Moscow, Idaho. It was 800 acres. My great grandfather Nels Anders Nelson purchased it after finishing his railroad contract. The farm was purchased from homesteaders that couldn't make it through the rough harsh winters, and lost all their cows. This was before the railroad Nels A. Nelson built was put in.
My dad loved to hunt, and I grew up on wild meat. However, the 1960's had few elk, the herds were still trying to be built up by the ranchers, sportsmen, and farmers.
We had 40 acres on our farm set aside for whitetail habitat at the base of the Hogs Back at the foot of Paradise Ridge. Pheasants flourished there and quail, but their favorite place to live was in our orchards, barnyard, and even our yard.
College kids loved coming out to pheasant hunt with my dad, and he raised german shorthair bird dogs.
Our family camped and hunted in the Northfork of the Clearwater, St. Joe, and the Lochsa. I was with my dad when he shot an almost record black bear on Saddle Camp Road back in the 70's.
As the elk herds grew, I enjoyed the 1980's and early 1990's elk hunting around my current home place outside of Potlatch, Idaho. We mainly hunted in our own unit 8-A. October 10th was opening day of rifle season for elk, and as a school teacher our boys were absent from school to attend this important day with their fathers!!!
Our students that were of age to hunt, would bring their antlers or racks into school and make a promenade and show them through the classrooms as their brothers, sisters, cousins were proud to see their success. Sometimes I would get a knock on my classroom door, and boys would stick their heads in and ask if they could show the class their deer antler, of course I let them, and they were allowed 3 questions, with hands raised of course! Then back to reading group!!!
It was fascinating to see the excitement as the community prepared for stocking up for their winter storage of elk or deer meat. I live in a community where almost everyone is sustained on wild meat for nourishment. Most of our people are too impoverished to buy beef at the grocery store, so if they eat beef it is usually homegrown. I have purchased one beef in my life, a half quarter from my neighbor down the road. It was the last one I purchased not because it didn't taste good, but elk was more affordable for us.
We sustenance hunt, not sport-hunt. I have 3 sets of beautiful 6 point bull elk racks on my living room wall. One taken right by my house, it's the largest on Goat Head Trail. The other one was shot in the Lucky Clearcut barely few miles from my house. The third on Sand Mountain, and it was packed out on my horse Star.
We had to sell a pickup load of 5-and 4 point racks, rag horns, and deer antlers last winter we had saved for money. We always put in for a cow tag, but it used to be hard to get one. Now everyone gets a cow tag. One neighbor got two this year, a tag and special draw for just our unit. They are giving out cow tags like the lottery, and we are losing our foundation stock.
We are now experiencing the sport-killing of elk and deer in our unit, and unit 5 is being hit very hard. The wolves have really been hammering the elk herd by my friend that had the wolf encounter in her driveway, on her property behind her house. There was a bull, 3 cows, a calf and a few deer found with hardly any meat eaten off any of them. I've been told that the neighbor boy found them and they were mainly gutted with a few bites.
If it wasn't for our elk meat in our freezer we wouldn't be able to afford meat. The economy has been destroyed here for over 30 years. I live in a logging community.
I have never used the term "wolf thieves" or "murderers." I don't use that terminology to describe the Canadian imported wolves. They do sport kill, and have destroyed the state of Idaho, and many families. Most of all I feel sorry for our wildlife. I had a whitetail hide under a logging processor the middle of last month, 1/8 mile from my house, because she had a broken leg, was disemboweled, and her bag was torn. The loggers called IDFG and they wouldn't come out, so they dropped a log on her to put her out of her misery.
The next day I had the Alpha males tracks in my driveway. I took pictures of them.
I spoke to a woman in Idaho County, and she said the wolves ruined their lives. Killed their horse by their house, have stalked children going to the bus, killed livestock, and many dogs. She said people quit reporting kills a long time ago, just like everywhere else I interview people. They say why report it when DOW/USFWS would rarely confirm the kill as a "wolf-kill." There is documentation that 1 out of 8 "reported" wolf kills are confirmed. This is done by design, as you well know!
As far as the pathetic marginalization tactic that I refer to poachers as patriots. I'm assuming they are talking about only two men in Idaho. Tony Mayors is a great person and has done a great job bringing awareness about the Canadian Wolf crisis. I'm not familiar at all with his case. I hope he gets a fair trial, and is found innocent.
As far as Rex many people called him a patriot prior to his incident. I'm hoping he has the evidence to prove he was innocent of the charges of poaching. This is for the jury to decide, and if they are truly guilty they will be punished.
Phil Hart has a website. Every accusation is false, and he always receives unfair coverage in the liberal press. I will post his website later so others can read it.
However, I would like to take the time to invite and remind everyone to come to Jim Beers Seminar at the Jordon Ball Room, in Boise, Idaho at 7:00!!!
We had a "resident" wolf in Idaho, pre-introduction. Our resident wolves were purposefully not "processed" so they could bring in the larger Northern Canadian Occidentalius.
I heard wolves howl in the late 1980's in Washington Creek Campground, on the Northfork of the Clearwater.
It is sad to see all those elk gone now, with no benefit to the people who live in the area.
Chandie, you are making some great posts, don't let the haters intimidate you.
Richard
Personally , I would rather my semi-arid marginal public lands be given over to native WILDLIFE as the highest and best use, instead of alien exotic cows and sheep. Everywhere everytime a herd of cattle is put on public graze, wildlife loses out ; is displaced; competes for available forage.
High elevation public lands ranching is a failed experiment. Food producers my pink patooty...I cannot easily buy local beef in Cody Wyoming at all. It's really easy to buy great Argentine or Brazilian beef, though , at a much better price. Even with lavish subsidies and tax breaks and other economic " incentives", the local rancher is not marketting to me nor can he put his price down to market value at all. Blame the packers or the middleman , truckers, railroads, Wal-Mart, whatever...the red meat market in Wyoming has little if anything to do with local ranchers and a lot to do with real world economics, which long ago left the western rancher in the dust. Except they never got the Memo.
We need healthier native ungulate herds and the wolves/grizzlies/cougars / apex predators that go with them. Ranchers impede both of those goals. Wrongly so.
This is the agenda behind the ILLEGAL WOLF INTRODUCTION, that was thrown on top of our resident wolves.
The Wildlands Project, Ecosystem Management!!!! Our wildlife has been exposed by George Dovel, as being managed for non-consumptive purposes since it was written in 1995 by Deputy IDFG Jim Unsworth.
I live on open range, and our elk and deer have never competed with livestock.
I personally don't ever want to be put into a position where if I have to buy meat, I can only purchase beef from across the border, or beef raised with hormones in a feedlot.
I don't think you realize that folks who are put out of business to please you are not going to give you their land, they will sell it to developers for trophy homes, or they will sell to developers. Now can you tell me what hikers contribute to the economy? If we prevent every hiker from using public lands, it will not affect the market place at all. In fact if they have to work for a living, things might improve.
I would be happy to buy local beef, grazed on public lands even , when that producer begins paying fair market value for MY grass and water and land.
I'm not advocating throwing ranchers off public lands. Rather the opposite...I want them there to be good stewards blah blah bah , but they have to pay 100 percent f their own way with respect to the cost of me and my government providing them this bounty of public resource. Heck, I'd be happy if they paid 50 percent of their cost to the treasury for their graze. But 10-20 pepcent as is today ? No way. Today's $ 1.35 AUM on BLM ands, and $ 1.35 per mouth on Forest Service is only 8 cents higher than the $ 1.27 base fee from back in 1966 when the grazing fees were codified in their present form. They only adjust slightly from year to year, and in fact are prohibited by law from changing more that 10 percent in any one year, if I recall. When you subtract out free predator control and multitides of tax breaks for Ag that have no aprallel in other economic sectors ( like my own) , the public lands rancher is getting his graze at a steal. The rancher is stealing from the public treasury. There is no other way to put that.
A cow and calf on Forest Service grass in my county pays $ 5.40 cents to the federal treasury for putting on 600+ lbs. of carcass weight, worth near $ 600.00 in those four months.
Like I said, will GLADLY pay a substantial real-world User Fee for my hiking and backcountry use if and when the rancher pays his own way with substantial real world fees based on the true cost of providing him that excellent service and valuable resource.
If he cannot afford that , or still believes he is ENTITLED to cheap below cost public graze , just because, he should not be ranching. That is what is commonly called a " Market Solution", a keystone of modern Conservative political planking.
Only 3 percent of America's beef cattle ever set foot on public lands. Three whole percent. Why are those 3 Percenters the loudest whiners and the very ranchers driving the bison , brucellosis, wolf and wildlife debates over the cliff here in the West ?
P.S. Nobody who quotes wolf hater Valerius Geist has any street cred with me. He's a certified bigot when it comes to wildlife solutions.
The Canadian grey wolves would never have made it to Yellowstone on their own .
By the way , why is it such a great thing that Idaho successfully wiped out its own elk population ( and Woodland Caribou ) and had to have elk reintroduced , the exact same process we are currently using to repopulate wolves in their former range in Idaho. Elk good...Wolves bad? Are we mere humans allowed to make such unilateral judgments ?
No, we are not. Repopulating the West with wolves where the habitat and prey species are adequate to support that reintorduction is a very wise thing to do. It's part of our penance for the crime of genocide. Ranchers no longer should be allowed to call the shots..on wolves or anything else. They abuse their privileges, big time. They are guests on public lands , as are we all.
Everyone benefits form a reasonable price for our food, only the hiker reaps any benefit for his privileges to use the land and keep others out. At this point we have no idea what diseases are being spread by hikers, nor what drugs are dumped on the land with every bit of feces and urine. We have no idea how any of this affects the wildlife. We may eventually need biological clean up of the land they use.
Easy to support when its not YOUR fanny in the crack. Put those fuzzy wuzzies far enough away that the closest you'll ever come is your TV set.
I would love to ask those same people who supported wolves, well, we have lots to spare now. Want some?
Life would be extremely dull without meat........and you better find a source of vitamin B12...vitamin D, calcium, and retonals....man was made to be an omnivore, 100,000 years of evolution to become that way.
By Sunny Aslam, USATODAY.com
Lots of people these days are dabbling with a vegetarian diet. Whatever the reason — cholesterol consciousness, a yearning to be fashionably thin, or a newfound concern for cows and other living creatures — more Americans are taking the plunge and making the switch to a flesh-free existence.
But how safe is this experiment? Without meat in their diet, do vegetarians miss out on important nutrients?
Probably not, diet experts say. As long as vegetarians take care to eat a variety of foods, they can be just as healthy — and usually more healthy — than meat eaters.
"The federal government and the American Dietetic Association have reported that vegetarian diets are nutritionally sound," says Neal Barnard, president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a non-profit organization that focuses on preventive medicine.
Studies have found that vegetarians actually get far better nutrition than non-vegetarians, Barnard says. And vegetarians get larger amounts of fiber, iron, many vitamins and other cancer-fighting compounds than meat eaters.
"Almost all of our essential nutrients come from plants," says John McDougall, a physician and founder of the McDougall Plan for Healthy Living. "Plants make 11 of 13 known vitamins. B-12 made by bacteria is the only vitamin inadequately supplied by a plant-based diet."
McDougall, who is on the PCRM advisory board, is the founder of a 12-day, live-in plan at St. Helena Hospital that uses a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. McDougall says his plant-based diet promotes weight loss, but more importantly, it can reverse some serious illnesses such as heart disease without drugs.
McDougall points to a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine that looked at Seventh-Day Adventists in California, a group made up mostly of vegetarians. The 12-year of study of 34,192 people found that on average, group members lived 10 years longer than the general population.
Barnard adds that Americans suffer from having too much to eat, not too little. The typical American eats too much fat, cholesterol and animal protein, which contributes to high rates of obesity, heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and kidney disease.
"Vegetarians have a 40% less risk of cancer and much less risk of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease and other problems that are common among meat eaters," Barnard says. "Vegetarians also live several years longer and enjoy better health."
Meanwhile, Barnard says, "Americans are surprisingly undernourished when it comes to the protective nutrients that are in vegetables, fruits, whole grains and beans."
So swapping meat for vegetables is OK. But what about dairy products and eggs?
"Dairy is 'liquid meat,'" McDougall says. "Compare the macronutrients of cheese and beef — they are the same. Both contain similar amounts of cholesterol, fat and animal protein, and both are deficient in fiber, vitamin C and carbohydrates."
McDougall also asserts that milk and egg proteins are the most common causes of food allergies.
So what does the would-be vegetarian need to know to get started on a new eating regimen?
First of all, the person should be educated about basic nutritional requirements, says Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
"They need to be sure that they are getting adequate amounts of calcium, zinc, iron and vitamin D and are taking a supplement if needed," Klein says. "Fortified cereals, breads and orange juice could all be sources of these minerals and vitamins."
Klein, an expert on obesity, says less than 30% of calories in a person's diet should come from fat and less than 10% should be from saturated fat.
Barnard adds that vegetarians should take a B-12 vitamin supplement.
In short, new vegetarians can rest easy that their change in dietary direction is a safe one, experts say.
"Anyone planning to remain on a meaty diet should certainly see their doctor and perhaps a dietitian to try to plan for better nutrition," Barnard says.
Ron, just because I don't agree with you does not make you right. I agree vegi diets are good for many people if thats what they want, but they better be careful about how to get the essentials.
Be a veggie, go ahead! But leave me out. I am an omnivore!
"It is often said you can spot a vegetarian a block away"
I suppose you could spot an obese meat eater also.....
Why I bet those elk had better river rafting skills than the indigenous elk, giving them an advantage over the predators here...no fair.
ROFL
Slang terms abound when it comes to names for subspecies, but its true there is no such thing as a "Canadian Wolf" ; unless you are simply referring to a wolf that happens to live in Canada.
When elk numbers were too low here in the past it was due to weather/habitat or hunting by humans. Not because of their natural predators. Seriously, wouldn't you rather have smaller, healthier herds of elk that our land can actually support, and perhaps some OTHER animals out there as well, instead of an overgrazed elk farm?
Bergmans rule states that the colder the climate, the larger the animal. This is caused mostly by a surface to volume ratio. What this means is that if an animal is larger, it has a larger volume compared to a smaller surface, so less heat is lost.
Applying Bergmans rule to wolves might work. Wolves farther north, regardless of being of the same species (an argument for some), would have a larger body. One of their main prey species, moose, is also much larger in canada. (I have shot two montana moose (shiras) and one mature moose weighed about 800 pounds. The other was smaller. Alaskan moose mature bulls weight between 1200 - 1600 pounds and their canadian counterparts (a bit further south) weigh just a tad less on the average.
That being said, is it possible that these wolves have evolved eating larger prey? If so, then this would explain why the smallest moose in the world, (shiris) our native moose, may be easier prey for them?
This would explain the rapid reduction in moose numbers where ever these canadian wolves are now located.
They are antipeople environmentalists whom most have never spent a night outdoors unless it was in someones backyard in the big city.
Not even worth the time to discuss.
Hear the news? The governor of montana told the feds no more! Wolf reduction in the bitterroots is now in effect. Maybe a few elk will be able to survive now and people can SHOOT a few more of them to feed their families. He also gave ranchers the right to SHOOT wolves harassing livestock. Wardens will no longer investigate or report to the feds any occurances with wolves. What these wolf nuts don't realitze is that wolves will still be in Montana.....they just will be afraid of people, the way it should be, and the populations will be managed.
I know you can create a new dog in like 5 or 6 generations with the correct breeding, so I suppose it is possible.
Its not like they have not been eating good, however. 15,000 elk in YNP in 1990 down to less than 4,000 now. Lotta prey, lotta protein, for sure.
I was just making a case for the plight of the moose. Canadian moose are bigger and stronger. Montana moose are the smallest of the moose. It sure seems odd how the number of moose across the state has diminished whereever wolves are found, for sure.
"Animals are NOT humans or citizens with rights; they are PROPERTY. Whether it is the private property of my pet or livestock or the public property of wild animals held in trust for each of us by OUR government they belong to us. No matter whether they are so smart or so big or "so much like us"; they are and shall remain property for us to butcher or bob their tail or shoot over decoys on a cold fall morning. Those who would take away our rights in these regards have more in common with socialists and communists in foreign lands than those of us living under the US Constitution." http://www.iwmc.org/IWMC-Forum/JamesBeers/050119-4.htm
And:
5. While urban agendas and constituencies from Oklahoma City to New Orleans, and Presidential aspirations of a Governor of New Mexico (Richardson) are fuel for eliminating the ancient tradition of cockfighting, Federal legislation is passed to eradicate interstate aspects of such activity. The birds are private property and their regulation should remain a state or even preferably a local matter.
6. Horse slaughter, an emotional issue with the affluent and certain urban constituencies, is banned by Federal legislation. Horses are private property and, like fighting cocks, the recent spate of Federal authority declarations over these animals and their disposition by owners would have been unimaginable just 50 years ago http://www.wolvesgonewild.com/?cat=11&paged=4
This is the kind of person Jim Beers is!!!
You don't like it TOUGH.
One group of animal activists will not run rampart over the rest of the population. Remember, thats what the NAZIS did.
So buffalo is an animal activist.....I will remember that.
how much money of the supposed stolen P-R money was actually spent on wolf reintroduction? what time period?
why not answer the question
I do not believe animals are on equal footing with people, ok?
Treating animals like shit? Does that mean eating them is bad in your frame of mind? If it is, to bad. You won't rule me in any sense of the word.
How about a few less wolves so more game can survive. Even enough so some folks can still hunt?
I support Jim Beers because he is standing up for what is correct. I could care less what people like you think about chicken fighting or whatever. They are ANIMALS. PROPERTY of people. Sure, use some common sense about the issue. Take care of your livestock, dogs, cats, whatever. My dogs no doubt have it better than some people. A warm house, lotta exercise, good food. You trying to turn this wolf thing into animal cruelty is RIDICULOUS. How about the cruelty the wolves bring on the game animals? I once saw an elk die three days after being hamstrung (looked like it) by several wolves that never came back to claim their prize. Don't tell me about humanity. You dont' know the meaning of the word. How could you? You have never lived it.
Jim Beers is twice the man you ever will be. He is showing the TRUTH about wolf introduction.
Wolves cause much cruelty to other animals, from killing over several days to causing them to starve for fear of getting food. I would much rather see an elk in someones freezer than in a scavenging wolfs belly anyday.
A few wolves around is fine. The thousands you nuts want is insanity.
Dog fighting? You don't know what you are talking about, Richie boy. Lies are not truth.
Rich
Dogfighting is something I know little about but I assume it still goes on
as I write this response. There is probably no more emotional question that
could be answered than do you support dogfighting? So my answer is no I do
not support it. But if you ask me should it be allowed and regulated, I
would answer yes."
"Dogfighting is something I know little about but I assume it still goes on
as I write this response. There is probably no more emotional question that
could be answered than do you support dogfighting? So my answer is no I do
not support it. But if you ask me should it be allowed and regulated, I
would answer yes."
Right wing extremist Jim Beers is frequently a featured writer on the NAIA
Animal Talk group where his long winded right wing fanatical views have quite a
few groupie followers.
I have written on his support of Bullfighting and Cockfighting as a 'sport"
but incredibly Mr Beers supports the legalization and regulating of dogfighting
as well.
From his "Alliance for America" Beers writes this about HIS position on
dogfighting -
"Dogfighting is something I know little about but I assume it still goes on
as I write this response. There is probably no more emotional question that
could be answered than do you support dogfighting? So my answer is no I do
not support it. But if you ask me should it be allowed and regulated, I
would answer yes."
Jim Beers believes dog fighting should be allowed. Any sane person knows dog fighting is animal torture and barbaric-inhumane. You supporting this man and looking up to him as a role model speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. People like you sicken many others with your lack of compassion for the non-human inhabitants of this planet.
You are very correct in the sense that humans overall are willfully ignorant about the violence that they commit, both on their own species and wild and domestic animal species.
One big reason for this is that some people think that their white Western values are the ones that actually count. These types of people are so pitifully narrow minded and ethnocentric that they actually believe that people with a different value system than their own, ones that are not based on money, manifest destiny, might makes right, rugged individualism, christianity, colonization, and so on, are a small minority at best, and terrorists or eco nazi's at worst.
Instead of what they are; numerous distinct cultures, tribes, nations of people with deep traditional and spiritual connections to the land and it's inhabitants that trace a lot further back than Westerners 5 generations of white grandparents. Or other non Indian people who just enjoy the diversity of life that share this planet with them.
The colonial occupation of this continent began with violence and bloodshed. True, a few whites were killed by Indians along the way but it's about proportion. It was genocide which was inflicted on both the Indian People and other species with which they co existed like the wolf far out weighs the numbers of Westerners killed by Indians who were trying to defend their families, their culture, their connection to the land and it's non human inhabitants.
I'm told over and over again by many people, like some on these forums, that what I am talking about is a by-gone era, and to move to CA if I don't like their values. Which is similar to the idea of Indian Reservations when you think about it ie rounding up all the people with a different way of life and sequester them far away. These confused people fail to comprehend how the violent, murderous and destructive sequence of events that led to their modern day America are open wounds to the people whose families and values were the ones being exterminated. Open wounds that continue to have salt rubbed into them.
I'm not suggesting all Westerners move back to Europe or something else so juvenile. It's about how to make the best amends possible, which starts with honest compassionate remorse and recognition of a brutal past, for the violent rape and destruction of Indians, wildlife and land. If people actually could do this, which would be more than a causal, "yeah we know it was wrong, time to move on" sort of mentality, then conditions would start to improve towards a more compassionate and wise society that would not continue the violent myopic legacy that is the very reason we still see colonial domination and resource wars happening around the globe and North America.
You put words into other peoples mouths.
Jim Beers is a great man who believes that government should not be able to take away our freedoms, nothing more. Those freedoms are hunting, fishing, and the ability to make a living free of government intervention.
What people like you are about is contol and how you can control other people. It will nto happen, regardless of the poison you spew. People like you sicken many others like me with your lack of compassion for your fellow man who is trying to earn a living.
I can say for certainly that I love animals much more than you. I am consisitant in this by buying hunting, fishing and trapping licenses every year. Notice all the wildlife around? THANK ME, and more so the farmers and ranchers that have changed the earth to produce more forage for these animals, especially in the winter time.
Rich
Never once said I hated wolves, and neither does Jim Beers. We want CONTROL of the wolf population.
I think I get where you are coming from. If you can convince enough people that all we want to do it anniliate every wolf, you might get you way. Nothing is further from the truth. Manage the wolf population, using our own fish and game and local control. Thats what we want, and now we have it.
Keep convincing yourself you are right. You are not, but keep trying. It will keep you busy for awhile.
Jim Beers is a great american who stands for the values we treasure out there in the big sky country. A great american!
In other words, you don't have a say in what I do, or anyone else. Its none of your business.
The ol "they should not do this, they should not do that". Let THEM decide what is just and right, not you.
I'm Dave Skinner and I approved this thread-terminating message.