LOBO HATERS EMERGE FROM GRAVE OF 19TH CENTURY
With Wolves, Wyoming Keeps Shooting Self In Foot
By Todd Wilkinson, 2-21-07
It was during the latter half of the 1980s in a conference room at Snow King Resort in Jackson Hole. The topic was restoring gray wolves to the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and to a wider swath of the intermountain West.
Ronald Reagan was in the White House and William Penn Mott,Jr., Reagan’s director of the National Park Service, made a trip to Wyoming to talk about why wolves deserved a second chance.
Western lawmakers didn’t know what to do about the elderly Mr. Mott who proved to be more wiley than themselves.
Privately, behind the scenes, they furiously made calls to the president’s staff, demanding that Reagan fire the small old man with snow-white hair for speaking what they claimed was cultural blasphemy. Part of the (short) oral tradition of their kin folk in the West was based upon demonizing wolves; it united them against a common bogeyman.
Reagan refused to capitulate to those who wanted Mott muzzled or ushered down the road into a nursing home, in part because he knew Mott from their days working together in California. Reagan tapped Mott to look after the country’s national parks because he trusted Mott would speak the FACTS.
What I remember most about interviewing the gentle, soft-spoken Mott was that under one arm he carried the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wolf recovery plan—making the scientific case for wolf conservation— and with an index finger extended on his other hand, he politely instructed: “Young man, you shouldn’t listen to the kooks.”
In the years since Mott came to Jackson, the internet was invented and it transformed society; America also put probes on Mars; the human genome is being mapped; and the base of human knowledge has broadened.
In another triumph over ignorance, wolves also were able to roam wild again so successfully that they are being delisted from federal protection in several states. Thanks to science, Little Red Riding Hood has been moved out of the non-fiction book section of public libraries.
But what hasn’t changed is how Wyoming still clings to its ignorant frontier attitude toward wolves when one would hope the state’s politicians—including the top politician who has a law degree—should know better.
Last month, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it is preparing to remove wolves from federal protection, except for Wyoming because of its refusal to drag itself into the 21st century with an enlightened wolf management plan.
Now that it’s been shown in state after state that wolves don’t drive farmers and ranchers out of business, the new desperate argument from Gov. Dave Freudenthal, his Game and Fish Commission and so-called “sportsmen’s groups” is that wolves represent a grave and imminent danger to the state’s big game herds.
For a second, look past Wyoming’s neighbor to the north, Montana, which has plenty of wolves and in most areas where wapiti still roam, more elk than state wildlife managers know what to do with in a regular hunting season.
Ignore, too, the state of Minnesota which has THOUSANDS of timber wolves, a white-tailed deer population that is as large as ever and thousands of farmers co-existing with wolves.
What’s lacking there is lobo hysteria. Most Americans see through Wyoming’s backward attitude and the gleeful posturing in Cheyenne (as well as in the state capital of Boise, Idaho) over the prospect of gunning down wolves from aircraft and placing them in the same “management” category as ground squirrels and rats.
And most Americans, who make cross-country trips to see wildlife in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, find Wyoming’s (and Idaho’s) approach to be repugnant.
If lawmakers in those states are truly concerned about protecting big game herds, here are a few dire concerns that stand out and have nothing to do with wolves:
° With chronic wasting disease—a cousin of Mad Cow— rapidly advancing toward the National Elk Refuge on the edge of Jackson, what is the state going to do when CWD reaches the wapiti and mule deer of northwest Wyoming and causes a panic among hunters concerned about the safety of the meat? What will happen to the multi-million dollar outfitting industry? What about the elk ranches in Idaho? Game farms across North America have shown themselves to be cess pools of disease and as last year’s episode in Idaho shows, captive elk can, and did, escape.
° With the energy industry about to punch in thousands of new gas wells into the Pinedale Anticline, and the BLM admitting there will be impacts to wandering game herds and their winter range, where are the so-called sportsmen’s groups when you need them? President Bush now says he wants to spend millions of dollars protecting big game range but only after the federal government sacrificed range that should have been better protected. And if one wants a lesson in absurdity, what about the Forest Service and BLM leasing lands for drilling over huge citizen protest and now, after the fact, deciding that maybe those lands should be protected but because they were leased, taxpayers now have to buy out the leases from energy companies to avoid the appearance of a takings?
° And what about the so-called elk “overpopulation” problem? Remember that? Just look south to Rocky Mountain National Park where sharpshooters are being brought in to reduce the size of the elk herd because of concerns about “overgrazing.” The same claims were made during the 1990s by people in Montana’s Paradise Valley who crowed that there were too many elk and that the wapiti were eating their pasture grass. It got to the point where the state of Montana had to intervene with drastic winter elk hunts on the lands just north of Yellowstone. Critics of the park said Yellowstone was being managed as an elk feedlot. Today, with elk numbers reduced, those same people—including the infamous Robert T. Fanning, Jr., are twisting numbers and distorting science to say that Yellowstone is being turned into an “biological wasteland”. Oh yea, prove it.
The rabidness of the wolf and federal-government haters—how can it be construed as anything other than pure shameful “hate”?— defies logic, reason, science, and patriotism. Since when it is okay for citizens to get weepy over being American, wrapping their rhetoric in the flag and touting the contributions of the proud and brave men and women serving in uniform in the military yet spew venom, hostility, yes, hatred, toward the men and women who wear the uniforms of the homefront as civil servants working for agencies caretaking our public lands and wildlife?
Since when it is alright to condemn terrorism, as it rightfully should be condemned, yet condone the vigilantes in Idaho who boasted of posting wolf-poisoning techniques on the internet, encouraging wolf haters to take matters into their own hands? Two summers ago, if you recall, criminals acted on those impulses and set out poison baits around Jackson Hole with the intent, investigors believe, of killing wolves, but ended up killing and sickening dozens of peoples’ pet dogs. If a child had picked up those tainted, Temik-laced hotdogs and eaten them, it would have been murder. How is that not domestic terrorism and a contradiction of the rule of law and tenets of Democracy that U.S. soldiers are losing their lives for over in Iraq?
Agriculture in the West is in trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with lobos. Wolves affect only a tiny fraction of producers and among those they account for a tiny fraction of livestock losses compared to other factors (disease, weather, other predators, accidents, rustlers, etc), and where big game herds are concerned, wolf packs can only exist where there are healthy big game herds to sustain them.
In other states where wolf delisting is proceeding, citizens enjoy an aggressive program that targets wolves which prey on livestock and soon there will be a professionally managed sport hunt.
Remember these words: Professionally. Managed. Sport. Hunt.
Run By The States.
Based On Sound Science.
Based On The Fact That Most Americans And Citizens In Those States Want Wolves Back.
Based On The Fact That Most Americans Support A Compensation Program for Livestock Killed By Wolves On Property Property.
Based On The Fact That Most Citizens Do Not Want To Go Back In Time To The 19th Century When Any Creature That Was Not A Cow Or Sheep Was Treated As A Predator Or Competitor For Grass. (Predators That Were Eradicated Wantonly Included: Native Americans. Bison. Grizzly Bears. Wolves. Elk. Deer. Bald Eagles).
America Does Not Want To Relive The Era When Hatred Toward Nature Ruled The Range.
What a professionally managed sport hunt of wolves means is that trained wildlife managers—not cowboys enlisted from the state Department of Livestock or vigilantes— will administer the taking of wolves. It will be done in the spirit of providing sporting opportunity for hunters, managing the wolf population in a sustainable way, generating income for state agencies, methodically eradicating wolves or entire packs that create conflict with farmers and ranchers, and balancing the harvest of wolves with the desires of tourism promoters to provide opportunity for locals and outsiders, who bring millions of dollars into the states to see wolves in the wild.
This is as it should be, just as William Penn Mott Jr. and famous wolf biologist L. David Mech, promised it would.
Part of the bargain that was made with Americans for bringing wolves back was professionally managing them once they were recovered.
Mott, the Republican political appointee of Ronald Reagan, was right long ago when he warned against listening to kooks who do not have science behind them. Where wolf haters in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana fall into that description, you be the judge.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.




Comments
>>>>>>>>
Fri Feb 16, 7:06 PM ET
BILLINGS, Mont. - The presence of wolves in and around Yellowstone National Park has led to changes in elk breeding patterns, likely a significant factor in the decline in elk populations, a study published Friday concludes.
"Most people assume that low numbers of calves were due to direct predation. The paper says in large part it‘s because of the effect on pregnancy rates," said Scott Creel, ecology professor at Montana State University, who led the study.
Some wolf critics have blamed the predators for killing large numbers of elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
For their study, Creel and others examined elk scat from five wintering elk herds from 2002 to 2006. The herds were from Gallatin Canyon, Dome Mountain, Blacktail Plateau and Wall Creek in the Yellowstone ecosystem and Garnet Mountain, about 120 miles to the northwest.
When wolves are present, elk tend to move around more, eat in different places and change how they cluster in groups. With those elk, researchers found lower rates of progesterone and, as expected, fewer calves born the following year, the study said.
<<<<<<<
Seems like those howls interrupt that loving feeling.
What the states are being offered now was even worse than what we have. We still would have had virtually no control over managing the wolves, but we would have a very hefty bill to add to the rest of the losses. We already spend a tremendous amount on the grizzlies.
I have pointed out some of the statements about elk numbers in Yellowstone that are in direct conflict with each other. Did FWS count elk last March or didnt' they? They said no on JUne 30 2006, and say they counted 6588 in March 2006 on Jan 19, 2007. Is there a good reason for these conflicting statements?
There are all sorts of excuses made for the drop in the Northern herd, what about the Norris herd? What about any of the other elk in Yellowstone? How many moose are left in Yellowstone? How many to at the time of reintroduction?
The whole thing was based on what wolf proponents and FWS wanted to believe and not on science at all. And it is not based on science now, FWS wants to get out from under the whole thing, and the cost is getting too high for the whole 300 million people in the country to carry, so half a million in Wyoming can carry the cost. What happens if Yellowstone cannot carry 7 packs of wolves forever, and there is no historical evidense that it ever had anything even remotely close. Will we have to go get some more and put them back whether there is enough to eat or not, will we have to have more preying on livestock so there are "enough"? What are the pack numbers based on?
This has been a half ***ed plan from the get go and it is not improving.
Maybe I am way off base, but if humans stayed the hell out of trying to micro manage every thing, the we might find that some things manage themselves. If ranches and farmers are concerned about the damage done to their cattle herds, then move the ranch. Cows are a non-native species anyway.
We have become so concerned with the dollar, that we are sacrificing everything in its way. The enviroment, the wildlife, etc.
"Maybe I am way off base, but if humans stayed the hell out of trying to micro manage every thing, the we might find that some things manage themselves"
Micromanaging our lands by enviros is exactly whey we have the wolves to deal with. They wanted wolves ibn the worst way, just not where they were, so bullies that they are they picked states without enough people to stand up to them. So they spent millions of tax dollars to truck them into Yellowstone and Idaho.
Instead of expecting ranchers to leave their homes, why didn't the wolf lovers either put the wolves in the areas where they live, or leave their homes and go to Canada where the wolves were?
AS for the pronghorns, I hate it probably worse than you do since Wyoming is my home, but what you are saying is that no vehicles nor roads should be allowed in the state. Stop and think about the logic of that.
The choice of bringing wolves back to the inevitable friction with human interests sickens me. The debate now is not if but how best to kill wolves. Those that brought that situation to this point when the result was inevitable have blood on their hands for not applying a greater measure of intelligence to this choice and pretending this day would never come.
I don't disagree with your points. I am not saying I know the best way, or every aspect of the situation. I don't necessarily agree with the introduction or re-introduction of wildlife to a particular area, unless, that wildlife is or was native to that area. I should have said that more clearly.
As far as the pronghorns, moose, elk, etc...I am not saying that we should ban roads or cars. I am saying that a lot of their demise has been because of human intervention.
As far as micro managing...the only point I am trying to make, is that natural management of the enviroment, as in letting nature take it's course with how to deal with itself, is better than human intervention. (That is my opinion)
As humans, we think we know what is best for everything. That is an ego trip.
If it means not "introducing" a species to an area where it was not previously a native, then that is what it means. Even if it is the wolves, or a certain fish, etc.
Sorry to offend...if I did.
It is a historical fact that the wolves that inhabited the area were a smaller wolf than the Canadian wolves, so were those in the park a remnant of wolves thought extinct? We will never know because introducing a large number of the big wolves was considered more important than delaying the whole thing and trying to find out.
One big goal of the whole thing is and was to eliminate ranchers from public lands. Obviously you have heard that so much that you also said folks should have to give up their homes, which includes a lot of private land. That private land supports a tremendous amount of wildlife, especially in winter.
No matter how severe the impact on other wildlife by the very large number of wolves, the wolves alone cannot be managed. Thee are a number of Big Horn Sheep that I mentioned in my last article that winter along the Shoshone river, they are often down in flat areas to graze. If one of the mega packs find them, they will be able to virtually wipe them out before they can get to the rocks and out of reach. It would be just too bad, they cannot be controlled under the present regulations.
I think this wolf mess is going to show just exactly why the ESA simply must be redone.
If the Canadian wolves are a pest, and they are non-native, then eradicate them, BUT, in turn the populations of the "native" wolves should be maintained or increased, if they have been depleted.
Again, thank you for your information.
Marion apparently has more wolf 'facts' than anyone; JJ sounds like he's shooting from the hip with his 'facts;' and Craig Moore is some kind of dufus moderator capable of supplying evolution logic to us knuckleheads. None of your 'facts' are cited; for all we know, you made them all up to suit whatever agenda you have.
What makes any of you guys feel like it's up to you to decide the wolf issue? Who put you in charge? Because that's the way it comes across - not as a debate, but senseless (that cannot be stressed enough) and counterproductive bickering. Kind of like dumbass on dumbass crime.
Then, after smallpox and other goodies wasted millions of Indians, game populations rebounded, and the 10,000 impact of Indians on the landscape wasn't quite so evident. At least not to those European scientists coming over to tell the world what was what.
In other words, JJ, the Americas are a manmade artifact, so you really can't make the case for a natural system. Nobody knows what it really was like 12,000 years ago.
As for Todd...I really wish you would get off your "enlightened" high horse and confess that the driver here is conflicting value systems. You have yours, you feel yours is superior, and that's your right. But you might be wrong.
government may sue that agency in a United States District Court for violations of federal law
provided that agencys action is deemed to be a final agency action subject to judicial review.
FOTNYEH meets these basic criteria. The FWSs October 26, 2005 and February 8, 2006
publications rejecting the FOTNYEH petition to delist were both final agency actions subject to
judicial review. As an organization concerned about wolf predation on Yellowstone elk, the
FOTNYEH qualifies as a party with a direct, vested interest in the management of wolves in the
region. Because the FOTNYEH can demonstrate that the FWSs rejection of the petition to delist
has caused harm, which may be remedied by forcing the FWS to comply with applicable law, then
it qualifies as a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against the FWS.
Wilkinson as ghost writer for Mike Phillips can blog and opine all he wants. At the end of the day Wilkinson/Phillips/Turner are relegated to the sidelines, helpless as bystanders with only subjective and qualitative opinion to offer.
The science FOTNYEH will present is the original science prepared by Congresses instructions by a politicaly neutral 15 Ph.Ds' known as the Delphi 15. That science is universally regarded as the "best available science".
FOTNYEH is the only party in the 9th Circuit with the "standing" to take illegal wolf introduction{Wolf Implimentation Rules of Nov. 18,1994} and extreme wolf densities in the Yellowstone Ecosystem that violate the National Environmental Policy Act all the way through the United States Supreme Court.
We don't have to prove a thing to Wilkinson , just to the Court, which we and our professionals have spent 7 years preparing to do.
That's our response and we didn't need a 35 paragraph rant to do it.
See you in court.
R.T.Fanning
Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc.
So, you're a Friend of the Yellowstone elk, are you? Or is it really that you are jealous and angry the wolves get to kill more elk than you?
There's nothing unstable about elk populations in Yellowstone, why do they need you for a "friend?"
It's a very simple question: Why are you so concerned about the Yellowstone elk? Please don't spew that population decline bull - going from 30,000 to 29,000 is a decline, but hardly a significant one.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/WeeklyRpt06/wk06302006.htm
You have avoided the question: Why are you so concerned about the Yellowstone elk?
Also, the better link is this, as it is more current:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/press/nycwwg.htm
I find this quote from the above link very interesting, what do you think:
“In an effort to reduce hunter mortality on female elk, FWP has reduced the number of antlerless Late Elk Hunt permits over the last several years. For the last 2 years only 100 antlerless permits have been issued,” said Lemke. “At the current level of harvest, recreational hunting has very little impact on elk numbers in a population of several thousand animals. Hunting has basically been removed as a significant factor regulating northern Yellowstone elk numbers.”
So, FOTNYEH and Marion:
Are you angry the wolves get to kill more elk than you?
We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.
In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy; how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable side-rocks.
We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes—something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.
Note the mention on the population trends:
"The project was launched in 2003, after a drop in the number of elk counted during annual surveys in that area. Between 1994 and 2004, the elk count fell from 19,035 to 8,335. This winter's count, conducted on Dec. 30, found 6,738 elk.
The calf study found that bears, not wolves, were the leading cause of death for young elk before their first winter, when they would be counted by researchers."
The bears eat the calves while the wolves interrupt that loving feeling. What is the elk # goal?
Far too much of the information is twisted, and just once in awhile do real facts show up. I am posting excerpt from an article from the Billings Gazette Jan 27, 2007, please note what they said about elk calves and yet as was posted the information is that bears are eating the calves. Also note the conflicting statements regarding elk counts in March of 2006 from 6/06 and 1/19/07.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/01/26/news/wyoming/25-wolf.txt
On the park's Northern Range, where more than half the park's wolves live, about 75 percent of the wolf kills were calves, while 15 percent were bulls and 10 percent were females. "Prime age" elk were the least frequently killed, he said.
That's what happened in 2004 and 2005, when the winter study revealed that wolves had switched, after nine years, from eating primarily calves in the winter to catching and killing bull elk. That year, bulls made up about 60 percent of the wolves' diet.
June 30 2006
The working groups’ annual winter population trend count for elk was unable to be conducted this past winter because of lack of snow and unusually windy conditions.
Jan 19, 2007
The northern Yellowstone elk herd winters between the northeast entrance of Yellowstone National Park and Dome Mountain/Dailey Lake in the Paradise Valley. This year’s count of 6,738 elk was similar to the count of 6,588 elk in March 2006, but significantly lower than the 9,545 elk counted in January 2005.
The Shiras moose in the Yellowstone ecosystem is the true endangered specie now .
Mountain sheep numbers are so low and genetics so thin that, that population will never recover.
First, it is tenuous to imply that Reagan was any true believer when he rushed out to appoint Director Mott. The truth is that the Reagan Administration had run itself onto the rocks with James Watt and was frantically searching for competence anywhere it could find it, much like Bush hurriedly replacing Rumsfeld.
Second, you only touch on the intensity of the cries of "elk overpopulation" that were heard back in the 1950s and into the early 1960s and again in the 1980s and early 1990s, just before the wolves were brought back. Throughout the 1950s, the ranchers and hunters were constantly harping about the supposed degraded condition of the northern range. Study after study was produced to show that the range was sustaining an incredible diversity of rangeland plants and the health of the elk was outstanding, especially considering the fact that the GYE is just flat tough habitat for both flora and fauna; but, the complaining went on regardless.
The truth was, as it is today with the bison, that the ranchers just didn't want that many elk wintering on their grazing allotments and wanted the herds reduced. The situation with the hunters was not so transparent and a lot more weird and disgusting. In those days, a truly bizarre vocal minority claimed to represent the hunting public in the area and these "kooks," many of whom were just seeking publicity to support their own political purposes, wanted the elk herds reduced because they claimed that fewer elk using the habitat would encourage the growth of more trophy bulls. ...and the dumb as dirt hunters let them get away with it.
The politics during that era were as bad as they are today with Ike so old, slimy Nixon constantly pulling strings, Joe McCarthy's echo everywhere, and that ribbon merchant Goldwater down in Arizona saying things like "better dead than red." What kind of responsible adult talks that way? It was surreal. They were spending just flat obscene amounts of money to kill elk and bison by the hundreds and haul them away with big industrial trucks and military-style helicopters and there was even a push by some GOP "kooks" to let market hunters back in.
My dad, my uncle, and I used to sit in on some of the meetings during those days where Starker Leopold was treated like one of those little tin bears in a shooting gallery. He and his experts would try to run on way and get shot at by one group, then try to run the other way and get hit by another. Nothing that was produced in that era could be called even a good compromise; it was just bare survival to have a chance to fight another day.
The irony is that, in the early 1960s, the same kind of rightwing "kooks" (and Director Mott was in a position to call them) that we are seeing today actually wanted the northern herd numbers down to about what they are alleged to be today. I say alleged because I believe that perhaps as much as a quarter of today's herd is staying in the trees now and are not as easy to count as when they stood out in the open.
It was only the combination of the elite "Harriman-school" bureaucrats and their sacrificial dedication to public service, which we have lost since then, and the JFK inspired idealists that finally changed the political climate and stopped the slaughter. In twenty years, from the mid-1960s when the killing stopped to the mid-1980s, the northern herd rebounded and so did the "kooks." Mott's willingness to discuss wolf reintroduction wasn't just because he believed that it was right ecologically; it was in response to renewed assaults by rightwing bought and paid for range management scientostitutes endlessly claiming that the elk overpopulation problem was ruining the northern range. There are still elk exclosures, along the Lamar and above Blacktail Creek, that date from the late 1980s and early 1990s when the argument about elk overpopulation and its impact on the northern range had flared again.
Babbitt finally had the crust to bring the wolves back in the mid-1990s and elk numbers are now down closer to what the "kooks" always said they wanted. Now, the "kooks" are complaining again. Why? ...because their agenda has never been about the elk; it has been about bashing the park idea long enough and hard enough to cripple it and gain control.
Your premise is right on... The wolves turned out to be no real problem for us ranchers, at least those of us who would remain solvent under any reasonable expectations; so, the rightwing manipulators had to stir up the hunters (please refer to articles on the true nature of the NRA).
"what kind of self-respecting collection of truly reputable scientists would actually either call themselves or ever even consider allowing themselves to be called "the Delphi 15" "
They are all listed in "Wolves for Yellowstone Volume 1 a Report to Congress and the Department of Interior 1992"
See ya in court Mike. You'll have to get there early to get a seat in the gallery.
Elk Herd Populations (2005 data) - Jackson Hole News & Guide Feb 14, 2007
Population Estimate/ Population Objective/ % Over Objective
Jackson ____12,885_______11,029_______ _____17 percent_____
Fall Creek ___5,639________4,392________ ____22 percent____
Hoback ____1,160 _______ _1,110________ _____5 percent_____
Piney ______3,429______ _2,424_______ ______41 percent_____
Pinedale ____2,064______ 1,900______ ________9 percent______
Cody ______6,447_____ _5,600_______ ______16 percent_____
Clark's Fork _4,287_____ 3,000______ _______43 percent_______
All of these elk herd units have wolf packs, so where is the biological desert predicted so often and fervently by Fanning?
Todd makes a good point about the Great Lakes wolves -- an issue I've researched. No where in Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin will you find the emotional white heat so characteristic of Wyoming and Idaho.
I think part of the reason is that the Great Lakes area never quite eradicated the wolf, which had a stronghold on Isle Royale and there were always rumors of wolves in the North Woods.
Secondly, livestock growers in that area can generally step out the back door and see all their livestock in nearby pens and pastures. Livestock aren't released into the woods to graze. Such close proximity makes it easier to guard and protect livestock.
Third, there's such an excessive number of deer up there that wolves have little reason to go after livestock.
Now turn to the Northern Rockies where ranch families take cultural and ancestral pride in grandpa or great-grandpa eradicating the last wolf, griz, whatever on their land. Our ranchers turn out herds into mountain forests and meadows in the spring and can't easily watch or protect their wide-ranging herds.
Yes, there is more livestock predation here than the MidWest, and yes, ranchers believe they're compensated for only a fraction of what they lose to predators. Yet livestock growing is a chancy business given greater losses to weather, disease, birthing problems and the ubiquitous coyote, which takes far more livestock than B'rer Wolf or B'rer Bear.
There's interesting work afoot by ranchers and conservation groups, in non-lethal efforts to prevent livestock predation. Some seems to be remarkably effective. Other operations seem to be snakebit when it comes to wolves and griz hitting their herds, and some outfits, like the Diamond G Ranch near Dubois, which has been a wolf hot spot for years, has suddenly cooled off and no one really understands why. The wolves are still there, there's the same management, but losses have been minimal compared to heavier losses in earlier years.
You get those elk stats and your bogus moose work into court Brodie. Alaska Dept. of F&G;tells us, after 50 years of study , that predation is the cause of 85% of all ungulate mortality
Stay off the single malt while you craft your case and compile your credentials for submission to the Supremes.We have Ph.D.'s that will be a bit more believable than a Jackson blogger.
They call it the Northern Herd because 7 of its 8 components migrate north into Montana and drag the wolf packs up with them.
The Northern herd used to number 19,780 now 6,700.
Singer and Mack promised stabilization at a 100 year average of 14,500.
2,800 cow tags are now 100. Congress promised the "Experiment" wouldn't hurt hunting.
Now tell us how well your willows and songbirds are doing and all the other Nature Conservancy/Defenders/HSUSA talking points.
Wyoming is in the 10th Circuit, Montana is in the 9th, your comparrison is apples and oranges.
Notre Dame has won 8 wire (AP or Coaches) national championships, more than any other Division I-A school.
"and in the end when the Great Scorekeeper goes to mark against your name , it's not wether you won or lost, but how you played against Notre Dame"
RTF ND '73
Go Irish!
Dave Skinner...I don't care if it was the whites, indians or asian that are wiping out animals...what I am saying is that in my opinion, it seems that we as HUMANS have think we know what is always best for the enviroment or wildlife and how to manage it.
On the honest side of things...I have always cared about the enviroment or wildlife, but never have done anything to adjust my living and at least a small part to protect or save it. I am not an enviro-kook or nutjob. I am just a simple business person, who has an opinion, which I am entitled to, and would like to educate myself on what I can do to make a difference.
My sincere apologies to anyone I have offended, none of my post were meant to do so.
>>>>>>>
ESA rule 10(j)—Nonessential experimental populations
An "experimental population" is a group of individuals of an endangered species that has been established outside the current range of the animals. Animals may be reintroduced to their historical range or to new areas because there is insufficient habitat in the animals' traditional range. Experimental populations are considered threatened, not endangered, and "taking" individual animals is permitted under certain circumstances.
Protections of experimental populations vary widely, depending on whether the population is considered "essential" or "nonessential" for species survival. Designation as a "nonessential experimental population" under the 10(j) rule of the ESA assures that endangered species are fully protected from intentional harm, but keeps their presence from restricting current and future land management practices.
Use of this special designation helped reduce concerns raised by local communities, landowners and political entities about the intentional release of endangered species that might enter and remain on public lands in their region. The reintroduction of gray wolves to their traditional range in Wyoming and the California condor to its historic range in Arizona are examples of experimental populations that are considered "nonessential" to survival of the species.
<<<<<<<<<<
As best as I can determine, this designation is only used for wolves and the condor. Then the question is, was it written for the express purpose of justifying and allowing the introduction of the wolves into this specified area?
Excellent questions and responses by well informed people Marion & Craig.
The WOLF IMPLIMENTATION RULES OF NOV.18,1994 and the Federal Register of Feb 22 1994;
give the background and context for the 'experiment' the proposal to 'accelerate' a naturally occuring process and a written acknowledgement by the USFWS that they were by that 'accelerated' introduction violating the Endangered Species Act.
In exchange for the illegal 'acceleration' the USFWS/DOI/Dept of Agriculture agreed to a specific set of rules in managing the wolf.
Our attorney describes the WOLF IMPLIMENTATION RULES OF NOV.18 1994 as "the law that governs the USFWS in their conduct of the wolf program."
WOLF IMPLIMENTATION RULES OF NOV.18 1994 and the federal register of Nov 22 1994 will be primary evidence in both lawsuits in the 10th Circuit and the 9th Circuit proving the illegal 'experiment' failed and the USFWS violated their own rules in the administration of the program. In the weeks and months to come you will see more and more about this in the mainstream press.
This may help in you understanding of why Wyoming is so determined to get to court and why the service is so determined to keep the case from being litigated.
As a general rule, any party who is suffering harm from an action by an agency of the federal
government may sue that agency in a United States District Court for violations of federal law
provided that agencys action is deemed to be a final agency action subject to judicial review.
FOTNYEH meets these basic criteria. The FWSs October 26, 2005 and February 8, 2006
publications rejecting the FOTNYEH petition to delist were both final agency actions subject to
judicial review. As an organization concerned about wolf predation on Yellowstone elk, the
FOTNYEH qualifies as a party with a direct, vested interest in the management of wolves in the
region. Because the FOTNYEH can demonstrate that the FWSs rejection of the petition to delist
has caused harm, which may be remedied by forcing the FWS to comply with applicable law, then
it qualifies as a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against the FWS.The science FOTNYEH will present is the original science prepared by Congresses instructions by a politicaly neutral 15 Ph.Ds' known as the Delphi 15. That science is universally regarded as the "best available science".
FOTNYEH is the only party in the 9th Circuit with the "standing" to take illegal wolf introduction{Wolf Implimentation Rules of Nov. 18,1994} and extreme wolf densities in the Yellowstone Ecosystem that violate the National Environmental Policy Act all the way through the United States Supreme Court.
Those who are so adamant against lethal wolf control in defense of game herds may want to ask themselves; "Will the US Supreme Court allow the 'experiment' to continue since the law was violated in the administration of the illegal 'accelerated ' introduction?"
Our attorney Karen Budd -Falen of Cheyenne , Wyoming is considered to be the best ESA lawyer in the country on our side of the issue.
She is currently arguing a related case before the United States Supreme Court.
In an extensive written legal opinion to the Montana legislature she outlined exactly what we needed to be doing and how much it would cost to get this case through judgement at the USSC.
We have been working with her for 4 years.
We filed the petition to delist 10/5/01, well in advance of the service invoking DPS on 4/1/03.
Mrs Budd Falen told the Chair of the Montana House Judiciary Committee "Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc is holding all four aces when it comes to wolf delisting."
While I appreciate your legal advice Craig, we'll stick with the written legal opinions of our attorneys so our superior legal position is not mistaken for bravado.
Two things I wish to add to this discourse, especially after reading Brodie's piece. Back in the early 1960's, there were so many Elk in northern Yellowstone that the range deteriorated badly and the elk weere largely starving. I believe at that time the northern herd was reckoned at nearly 30,000 animals. I remember as a youth seeing thousands of Elk at a time in Sunlight Basin , directly east of Yellowstone, that had migrated out. They were in poor shape I recall my dad and uncles saying...I was too young to know or care. The Park Service took a drastic action to reduce lk numbers and relieve pressure on the range and improve the herdstock...they set up the "Gardiner Firing LIne" and brought in professional hunters ( snipers) to kill Elk by the thousands and bulldoze their carcasses into mass graves . If you are incredulous at this, I have a photo in my files of a shooter standing with his rifle atop a pile of Elk carcasses the size of a Bix Box store. That also is a definition of "management" , and again just as in the Wyoming debate fifty years on , the only "management " tool on the table seems to be high powered rifles. The public outrage over the massive Yellowstone elk kill was huge. That is what brought the Wolf back into the picture, folks.
Secondly , I would like to suggest a radical tool for managing all of Wyoming's wildlife and livestock resources...and though it is tantamount to heresy , it needs to be said. The Wyoming cattleman ( and sheepherders if any remain) needs to come into the 21st century if they wish to surviie in their economically flawed model of rasing alien exotic bovines for profit in our open lands , public lands, and rich riparian lands that the early cattle barons " appropriated". As an aside, it would be tough love to ask the Wyomng stockmen to relinquish all their subsidies and tax brreaks and put the cettle market on a level money field. But that is not what I am suggesting here. Rather, I would ask that the Wyoming Operators Manual be amended to change exactly ONE word...change "Out" to "In"...as in Fence Out to Fence In. This would be a seismic change for stockmen. It means they would have to physically manage their herds 24/7/365. It means they could no olonger turn cows loose on the mountain in June,check 'em a couple times over the summer, and round them up in the fall then claim that all "missing" cattle were taken by Wolves or Grizzlies. Etc. I simply want the cattlemen to be full responsible and proactive in managing their herds, and managing them in such a way to keep Wolves at bay by injecting a human presence to the grazing alottments , for we know that Wolves stay away from humans even if hungry. Can the modern day Cattrle Barons that are howling the loudest about Wolves and are putting up the fiercest resistance bring this to the table? All I see that they have brought is a loaded gun. Can the livestock industry evolve and adapt to the presence of Wolves , or are they locked in to their failed 19th century business model in perpetuity ?
The Wyoming Wolf Debate is the great Sociological case study of our western times.
We know that do we? Is that why on at least 2 occasions wolves have attacked elk beside the Mammoth restaurant, killing one and the rangers killed the other after 2 days of torture. Is that why they kill pens of sheep within sight of the house? Would that account for wolves attacking Mrs. Robinett's dog as she led it to the barn to try to protect it from wolves? Would fear of humans account for the problem of wolves begging last winter in Yellowstone?
If you truly live in Cody, you can expect your taxes to go way up to pay for the wolves that are to expensive for the whole country to share in supporting.
I would agree with your last statement 100%. I never expected any Americans to insist on forcing their desires on other people to deal with and pay for.
"Andy's Rock"
There has been a story passed down through the generations of my Mother's family regarding "Andy's Rock." When I was very young my mother would take us back east to visit her roots in northern New Jersey. These roots go back to a 'King's land grant' which was the incentive for their leaving Europe and coming to America. I have seen the rock, which is the basis of this story. My Mother learned the story when spending summers at my great-grandfather's farm. She would hear her grandfather and others refer to Andy's Rock from time to time as a convenient geographic marker of common understanding. One day she asked him why that stone was called 'Andy's Rock.' She was told that there was this dashing young man that was smitten with an ancestor of ours. He would come up to the wild woods of New Jersey for a little courting. Before one such trip, he sent word ahead that he was coming in order to prepare people for his visit. He didn't show up as expected. A couple of days later he finally showed up. He explained that he had an interruption. Wolves were trailing him and he felt threatened. He climbed up this large rock. He had to fend them off for a night and a day before they moved on. The young man was affectionately known as Andy Jackson.
Sure beats climate change. Climate change will terminate the wolf problem. Just wanted to add one minor point. The Canuck wolves are that were introduced from Canada are the same species that roam the US states. In fact they regularly migrate back and forth accross the boarder in search of good hunting grounds. They problem that it has come to light is that neither the Canadian nor the US wolves have passports and under the new laws regarding boarders....
I'd like to hear a little bit more from Mr. Fanning."
"it has been about bashing the park idea long enough and hard enough to cripple it and gain control."
That is the stuff of delusional "kooks" with a substance problem.
You're not on the same psycotropic drugs your boss is taking are you?
"The wolves turned out to be no real problem for 'us ranchers'."
That's why 19 ranchers testified in Helena as proponents for HB 343, they weren't hired men for phony elietist ranchers on leashes wearing rhinestone collars.
They were real cattlemen who take financial risk, own property, employ people, have estates to protect and sent their president and the local game warden to demand a solution to the scourge of these wolf densities.
We have 'standing' and told you what is already in the public record.
You have nothing but a chance to give Todd a reach arround with your revisionist history in an obscure blog.
See you in court. We'll save you a seat in the back row.
The whole thing seems to be based on the fact that certain folks wnated them and wanted to see what would happen, there was no concern about responsibility or actual outcome. Now it is up to the three states to deal with the mess. Even some of the wolf watchers admit on other sites that they are getting bored watching the wolves sleep.
Wolf re-introduction remains the biggest mistake in the history of wildlife management. Wolf populations increasing 30% /yr at the expense of native ungulates.what a poor legacy to pass on to future generations of young people.How could decision makers who work for us the public be so incompetent?
What happened here is man made, extreme and politically motivated.
The theory of natural regulation is scientific fraud and was exposed as fraud by the National Academy of Science in their study of Yellowstone and its' management practices.
The unnatural and abrupt introduction of extremely large numbers of non -indigenous protected wolves on top of an unadapted and plentiful prey base with the additive effect of protected grizzly bears, cougars, coyotes , black bears laid the ground work for ecological disaster.
That disaster was predicted by Drs' Peterson ,Gassaway and Messier in their report to the U.S. Department of Interior in 1995 on page 11 when they warned the Yellowstone Ecosystem "would be forever and irreparably harmed." if intensive monitoring of the prey species was not conducted .
Mike Phillips, the biologist in charge of the 'soft introduction' of wolves in 1996 stood on a stage in Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone Park October 4 years ago and said;"the abundant must be sacrificed for the few". Phillips and former Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Mike Phillips now works Ted Turner.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2006/articles02/mike_phillips_wolf_reintroductio.htm
The jihad waged on ungulates in the Yellowstone Ecosystem was premeditated, malicious and political in nature and goes on to this day.
All the way back in winter of 2000 Kurt Alt , supervising biologist Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks stated that "wolf densities in the Yellowstone Ecosystem were the highest in all of North America". Wolf numbers continue to multiply at a 34% rate .
Scientists acting as apologists' to wade in a decade too late, now that the predation pit has been reached, and justify, marginalize, rationalize the agenda driven science only compounds the disgrace brought upon the biology profession.
High density ungulate wildlife management practices were ORDERED by the United States Congress before the Frankenstein's of the biology profession were allowed to commence with their EXPERIMENT.
Police the ranks of the biology profession and please don't give moral relativism to their high crimes.
Why do you care so much about the Yellowstone elk?
or, conversely:
Why do you hate wolves so much?
It is subtle, yet clear, that RTF, his Irish cohorts, and FOTNYEH are only interested in one thing: hunting tags. This is not about wolves or elk, but some people's remarkably narrow-minded view of the natural world. It is apparent RTF and FOTNYEH do not care about the western ecosystems. Simply put: Less wolves equals less competition for those trophy ungulates they speak of. Cloak that any way you like, it comes out in your writing, and will certainly come out in any case you and the Dufus 15 think you have. Name drop and cut and paste all the legal jargon you want, whatever it takes to avoid answering the very simple questions above.
I do NOT hate the wolves, I do hate having other people thinking they are entitled to take control of my home and my neighbor's home without a word of thanks or anything, just call us names. I do not feel you have the right to usurp our livestock nor pets to feed the wolves. But that has happened. We are even told that we have no right to land we have bouoght and in some cased owned for generations. Yet I have never seen the most avid wildlfie advocate even talk of giving up his own home, just take ours away.
The whole problem is, one side has all of the responsibiity, costs, problems, investment, and accountability for the wolves, your side has all of the control and no investment, no responsiblity. When you are tired of them (and even some of the Lamar crowd admit to being interested in other things now) you will twiddle off to see what else you can do to entertain yourself and we are left to take care of the mess.....a very expensive mess I might add.
Because you don't sweetie.
No one cut an pasted a thing.
Believe it or not; I'm that smart.
Is that yours and the FOTNYEH Mission Statement, "Because you don't sweetie."
No wonder you guys always lose, and will continue to lose. You've got nothing. Not even a Mission Statement.
Also, I don't believe you're that smart.
Marion: I own property near 8 FWP-confirmed wolf-packs, I have pets, children, and unlike you, I hunt and kill elk and deer every year. And guess what, I don't want the wolves near me eradicated either. Not yours, not mine. Management through hunting tags has great potential to eventually become the solution to overpopulation. We're not there, yet.
But like I said, this is not about wolves; it's about some people's misunderstanding of western ecosystems. RTF and FOTNYEH are angry the wolves get to kill more elk than them.
They have no case.
I presume you are addressing me, as far as I can glean from your rather elementary command of a keyboard.
Focus on this: 5% of 500 = 25. There's a big difference between 3 and 25 (22 in case your wondering). Also, elk hunt success is approximately 20% statewide - not a big number either. Again, your narrow-minded view of western ecosystems is that "valuable big game herds" are lost to wolves and you are angry they get to kill more elk than you. It would do your failing cause more good to own up to your selfish, narrow-minded position instead of skirting around it like the FOTNYEH has attempted.
Who's really out of focus?
If you want to kill more elk, get your lazy ass off your four-wheeler and get back in there where the animals are. Maybe then you'll start to appreciate our wild western country. If you're really lucky, maybe you'll see a wolf.
Is that your best attempt at sarcasm? You can do better than that, can't you.
I have to go grill some elk steaks now. Good luck, Jack.
I guess that I can now see how some of your arguments are pretty convincing and I can see that we will probably get our clock cleaned; but, I was wondering... Now that I have come to see the value of your assertion that only you and your organization have standing in this matter, could you please let us understand the situation better by telling us whether you and your legal team, led by Mrs Budd-Falen of course, will be presenting evidence or testimony that is more recent than the work of the "Delphi 15;" the subsequent and additional NAS studies from the 1990s; the Peterson, Gassaway, and Messier work that you mentioned previously; and perhaps the Kurt Alt comments as well? Will your case be substantially based on challenging the propriety of the implementation rules of 1994 and perhaps some additional allusion to the current population being "experimental" and thus, by implication, "nonessential?" If you could just illuminate these few questions, it would be very helpful in bringing us around to the right frame of reference on these issues.
By the way, your postings have turned out to be very helpful already and I want to thank you for your efforts.
As I understand since the Canadian wolves are larger than the natives were, and came from another country, they had to be designated differently to justify introducing them. That also has made it possible for FWS to kill the 550 that have preyed on livestock.
Despite being experimental and non-essential (there's plenty more where they came from that Canada would like to get rid of), they could only be harasses or shot by the rancher if they were in the act of killing, not before and not afterward. They are only killed by FWS after the second killing as I understand, don't know if that is policy or just the way they choose to do it.
Best of luck in Helena after the recess.
What was presented in these postings is in the FOTNYEH original petition to delist and a matter of public record. We lent Pat Crank our file so both the 10th and 9th will have to see and rule on that evidence.
The case is another matter. I will leave that to your immagination.
Funny how things turn out if you stay persistent isn't it?
Don't forget Mike to check with Abigail Dillen.
This isn't just about wolves , it's about the entire ESA , abuse of DPS and the lawful intended mission of the USFWS.
"ESA an absolute American nightmare. Congress must address the intent and scope of ESA. Save from extinction or expand to entire former range."
The quote is from a real scientist, Dr. Matt Cronin, Yale PhD about our case.
You, Kevin O'Neil and crew should have just delisted the "core states" when you had your chance. Now there will be multifaceted consequences ,precedent and social policy decided at the USSC that are beyond the control of your side.
Arrogance has a price.
The little guy always wins in the end.
[See ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendejo#Pendejo]
Sift through all the vitriol and there are a few worthwhile points in this comment stream.
Namely, Mr. Fanning's theme of what is the ESA for?
Yes, it is long past time for Congress to clarify just what this law is intended to accomplish. Clearly, the last black-footed ferrets or Sumatran tigers on the face of the Earth are different -- more precious, really -- than Canis lupus or Ursus arctos, of which there are a few hundred thousand each distributed around the Northern Hemisphere. Why can't we have a species law that clearly sees that distinction?
In a way, such distinctions are recognized in practice through things like Experimental/Non-essential rules. Unfortunately, without a clear, authoritative distinction from Congress, we fight and fight and leave it to the Courts to hash out what the law means.
To some extent, it's understandable that a 1973 law would take awhile to catch up with refinements in our understanding of (ugh, almost hate to use this word in such a politically-charged forum) biodiversity, population viability, and other parameters of our planet's flora and fauna. But it's getting to be a bit overdue.
Marion has pointed out before how the goalposts are different for different listed species, and how sometimes the goalposts seem to get moved during a species' time under ESA protection. That's clearly a deficiency of the ESA -- to not clearly define what we mean by "recovery" and standardize it across different species.
Let's not forget, though, that these are fundamentally VALUES questions, not necessarily SCIENCE questions.
We're really talking about how much we love/like/cherish/VALUE things like Slickspot Peppergrass, Blackfooted Ferrets, Grizzly Bears, Peregrine Falcons, &c;. Science cannot tell us how much we value these things, and how we should prioritize them relative to other things we care about.
Science can help us better understand these things, and can help us understand the costs and trade-offs associated with various levels of protection of species. Science can design ways to reach our goals, and can monitor our progress in reaching them.
SCIENCE CANNOT DICTATE WHAT OUR GOALS SHOULD BE.
Believe it or not, there are some "real scientists" who espouse this point of view. Check out Donald Ludwig at University of BC; Timothy F. H. Allen at University of Wisconsin; Robert Constanza at U of Maryland -- just to name a few.
Anyway, although we may diverge widely on how much we value various species, I agree that the ESA needs some serious clarification. Congress is remiss in letting it go as long as they have. Let's not mimic the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, though, by pretending we can put Scientists in charge of adjudicating our value disputes.
Marion, on the moose question (I can't find where you got an answer on that), I see that Dan Tyers and Lynn Irby published a paper in 1995 on moose in YNP area:
Tyers, D. B., and L. R. Irby. 1995. Shiras moose winter habitat use in the upper Yellowstone River Valley prior to and after the 1988 fires. Alces 31:35-43.
Alces is not widely available; however, Dan Tyers (got his PhD at MSU) is a Forest Service biologist in Gardiner and would probably be happy to send you a copy of that.
Excellent post.
You are a very bright fellow.
The world needs more folks like you.
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2007/02/RobbinscaseRighttoex.htm
This is what our attorney is doing while she waits to litigate wolf delisting.
What ever happens in the USSC will trigger Congress to grant your request ; "I agree that the ESA needs some serious clarification. Congress is remiss in letting it go as long as they have. "
Respectfuly,
RTF
$2.7 billion financial incentive to private land owners to keep the wolf listed on the Endangered Species List.
Does anyone have the political clout to exclude wolves from Crapos bill?
Will your neighbor be paid to create a wolf sanctuary on his private property at the expense of our game herds and livestock producers?
Feel any more urgency in getting a court ordered delisting of wolves?
Fact: Most people were duped into saying yes to bring the wolf back!
Fact: Most people were lied to that once a certain populated goal was met they would stop , or hold their growth.
Fact: Most Pro-Wolf people skip the facts and play on the emotions of others to get there side of the story through. The wolf may have a place, but until they roam in the "Urbanites" backyards and gobblke up their dog's, cats and kids, we, the people who live in the wilderness will have to deal with it on our own.