Bill: your last point is quite right. According to national agriculture statistics, predator kills are at a national level, not a major factor in livestock mortality. Weather and disease are much bigger factors. And of the predators, it is Cousin Coyote who does the greatest damage, simply due to large numbers and the fact you can find coyotes in every state (including Central Park). Wolves and grizzly bears can cause quite a bit of damage on individual livestock operations, but compared to the coyote, they are minor players.

Wolves kill a lot more elk and deer than they do livestock. In addition, a rancher can mitigate coyote problems himself.

You can't control the weather and disease. You can try to control the murdering of our livestock, wildlife & mans best friend from the non-native candian wolf. Our great grandfather & grandfathers tried to kill of the big populations of this predator for a reason. there populations are growing rapidly and it won't be long before they start attacking people just like the mountain lions in Cal. It is already to late but actions need to be taken before it is way to late....

Bill

I'm sure you'll do it, but just a reminder: as you report on this next week, please provide a link to the actual proposal, which I assume will be posted in the Federal Register. It will be impossible to comment intelligently on the proposal without seeing the actual language and maps.

Thanks for keeping us on our toes with this.

Robert

I noticed today that Montana has finished their livestock compensation plan as a part of their wolf plan. It seems all three states have to determine how we are going to pay for the damage caused by these animals. Wyoming has had to decrease moose permits, Montana has had to reduce elk permits, and I'm not sure about Idaho. At any rate it is obvious even though those who live elsewhere can impose their will on our small population states by their sheer numbers, they have no responsibility at all for paying for the costs. That will fall on the backs of a relatively few people. Then the nice greens can go find something else they would like for someone else to pay for.
The feds should have made a permanent compensation plan a part of the wolf introduction to begin with. Individuals should never have to carry the burden for entertainment of the majority. Once the elk are gone in Yellowstone, the wolves will go to the ranchs, the wolf watchers will go find some other form of fun, and the people of the three states will be left with a mess to clean up.

Wyoming's moose population drop in NW Wyoming was documented prior to wolf reintroduction and is more attributable to fire related habitat issues and overbrowsing during the boom years according to Joel Berger who did the research. Moose declines can't be pinned on wolves. The elk permits MT cut were late season cow tags in place to get the northern herd down to Fish, Wildlife and Park objectives. Wolves help MFW&P;achieve their goal of having the elk herd fit its range. They still issue some late season cow tags so they must still believe the herd needs trimmed. The reason you aren't sure about Idaho is that their herds are fine, minus the Clearwater herd that is in decline due to low quality habitat. Idaho's moose numbers are at an all time high and they are colonizing OR and WA as we speak. Elk harvests were excellent again this year. Just thought I'd correct a little misinformation floating out there.

Jeff

Thanks for the succinct corrections to Marion's misunderstanding of the facts. It's important that the general reader gets this information accurately.

Regarding moose, I am hoping to begin a detailed survey of moose habitat here in the Upper Country of the Wind River this coming summer. Moose habitat is in deplorable shape in many watersheds of the Upper Country, primarily due to decadent willow communities as well as moose overbrowsing.

About four years ago, eleven moose were found dead in the Upper Country; G&F;never could secure the carcasses for necropsies to find out what had happened. It certainly wasn't predation. I myself found one of the carcasses; it was a yearling male that had just literally died. It seemed in good physical condition.

The Wind River District of the Shoshone NF will be beginning a 5-year willow restoration project on the Wind River, primarily through prescribed burning, to improve moose habitat. We have great hopes for the project, although previous willow restoration work elsewhere has been spotty.

Robert
Regarding elk, G&F;is still issuing late season cow calf tags here in NW Wyoming, although not to the degree as in the recent past.

I will just post the link to an article about Joel Bergers study and the one now being done by the state of Wyoming.

http://www.uwyo.edu/news/webclips/showrelease.asp?webclipid=1061

They gave 100 tags down from 2800 for the northern elk hunt out of Gardiner. Like it or lump it, that is significant, irregardless of the reason for giving them in the first place.

Robert, do you know if they checked that moose you found for brucellosis? Studies I have read indicate that moose do not carry it as a chronic disease like elk and buffalo, they die in relatively short times. Was there any sign of scavaging on it? I saw a buffalo in the Yellowstone River a couple of years ago in late September when predators shoudl have been eating everything they could. It was never touched by a single one. I talked to another photographer who camped there for a total of three weeks thinking surely something would scavange it, nope.

The notion that Wolves are "illegal immigrants," or “non native” is inane. That wolves attack humans as mountain lions RARELY do in Southern California is unsubstantiated FUD. Wolves roamed the west long before us European settlers and our cows did. I hope the Wolves will be roaming the west long after we “non native” people leave.

--Michael Wise, Ketchum ID

Michael, there is no question but that the wolves were hauled down from Canada.
Wolves do not attack humans as often as lions do, no question, but they do attack, kill and eat humans. We have the young man in Canada last year as an example and there have been several attacks that did not result in death. Hunger seems to be the defining criteria, at least that seemed to be the case with the wolves that killed and ate so many little kids in India.
At least you will get the chance to put your money where your mouth is, the cheapskates who wanted the wolves to be planted here are seeing to it that the states are responsible for every cost, including reimbursement for livestock kills. A means of turning neighbor against neighbor, I guess.

That Northern Rockies wolves were originally from Canada is biologically irrelevant and only relevant to folks who feel put upon by the federal decision to reintroduce wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. There's no genetic difference between the Canadian wolves and those that used to inhabit this year before the advent of European settlement.
The unfortunate young man in Canada appears to have been attacked by wolves that had become habituated (probably through artificial feeding) to people -- hunger does not appear to be the root cause of that attack.
Wolf Trust in Great Britain (http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/faqpeople.html) has a good overview of research sources about wolf attacks on people. The Indian children (in India) were likely taken because of a lack of natural prey, human poverty and lots of unsupervised little kids.
Defenders of Wildlife pays for confirmed livestock kills by predator, so Marion's comment about "cheapskates" is excessive, nor am I aware of a nefarious "green" plot to drive ranchers off the land. I am aware of some very creative efforts at collaboration between ranchers and conservationists, aiming at protecting livestock from predation, without depending entirely on lethal controls of livestock.
There is a sizeable and growing toolbox for non-lethal control of predators, including range riders, fladry, portable electric fences, guard dogs, lights 'n sirens, predator harrassment, contraception (no pups = less need to hunt), avoidance of den and rendezvous sites, adjusting the turnout dates,etc.
There are no "magic bullet" solutions to predator/livestock conflicts. Even lethal controls provide only temporary respite, until other wolves move back into the neighborhood.

Brodie, you will note that a plan for each state to pay the entire cost of livestock loss is a mandatory part of the plan. DOW has no responsibility when they are delisted and only a voluntary one now. I'm sure you are aware that even Ed Bangs admits that only 1 our of 10 animals are confirmed. I certainly do feel that not making the federal government pay for livestock kills, and that would include environmentalists, in fact that should be a part of any non essential plan that an environmental group comes up with. I think it takes a cheapskate to insist on something they want and palm the cost off on others.
The fact that the wolves consumed all or part of the humans they killed tells me they were hungry. Certainly there is absolutely no fear of man in the new wolves, so I guess you could call them habituated.
Surely you are aware that many environmentalists are very vocal about their hatred of cows, especially on leased land. They do not realize jsut how much winter pasture, for just one thing is provided to wildlife by those same ranchers.
Birth control huh? Now there is an idea in keeping with all of the "natural" wildlife we hear about. Think of the problems that we could have avoided if they had used that on the elk, and for that matter on buffalo.
As for DNA remember the wolf killed just outside of Yellowstone that almost stopped the plant? He was a smaller animal and his DNA did not match anything, coyote, dog or Canadian wolf. He was only a 2 year old, so there must have been a breeding pair somewhere. If so the much larger wolves extirpated them.
I truly believe we have only seen the tip of the iceberg as to problems, and it is not the people who wanted them that pay, it is those dealing with them.

Brodie, I realize we see thing differently, but there is a book you might find very interesting. It is called REASONS FOR THE DECLINE OF GAME IN THE BIGHORN BASIN OF WYOMING by Calvin King, a state wildlife biologist. It was written in 1965, but he spent years researching it, I understand.
It is out of print and rare, but I would think the library in Casper would be big enough to have a copy, if not you might see if G&F;has any.
There are a lot of old photos in it, and also interviews with some of the early ranchers. It does put the perceived glamour of predators into context. Another good source for facts if you can find it would be Otto Franc's diary. I have only read excerpts, but it was pretty bad in those days. Day after day he recorded going out and finding wolf killed calves in the yard......kind of like today, except even more.

Marion-While in the book suggesting mood, how about
The Wolf in the Southwest: The Making of an Endangered Species. by David E. Brown
and Of Wolves and Men by Barry Lopez
Both of these books might give you another perspective on this increasingly complex issue.
Jeff

Marion the wolves that I have been near on foot have always shown fear as soon as they knew what I was. In the Lamar they have taken gone to great effort to make a large loop around me. During an elk hunt in GTNP three years ago I had a member of the Teton Pack stalk me to within 100 yds before I was forced to crack a shot off in its general direction. It was at first light, the wolf was young and approaching me with a 20-30 mile tail wind so it couldn't scent me. Every time I turned my back on the wolf to head up a hill it sprinted after me. Each time I turned and faced the wolf it stopped and with ears back and shoulder slunk it froze in place. I yelled at it and waved my arms, but it didn't flinch. I initally saw the wolves mousing in a meadow at approx 400yds away. When the wolf saw me I was limping due to an ankle injury and with shooting sticks pertruding from the top of my pack and a rifle barrel on the opposite shoulder I surmised I must have looked like a limping animal with antlers. Either way, every time I turned my back to head up a hill in the opposite direction the wolf sprinted towards me. Each time I faced it, the wolf froze in its tracks. I repeated this process three times, each time waving my hands and hat and yelling. The last time I faced the wolf it was 100 yds away. Everytime I went to climb the hill I would walk for 5-10 seconds before looking over my should again. I was amazed that the wolf was covering so much ground so quickly with my back turned. I had bear spray on my hip (as required by GTNP Elk regs) but I surmised that in order for the spray to work in the stiff head wind I was facing I'd have to let the wolf get much closer than I was comfortabel with. In the end I decided not to turn my back again. Despite not wanting to warn all the neighboring elk of my presence I shot one round of my 7mm into the ground about half way between me and the wolf. He immediatly turned and sprinted the other direction. As I continued up the hill, frequently looking over my shoulder, the wolf picked up his buddies and went the opposite direction. Once on top of the hill I counted 13 wolves total. I reported this to Ed Bangs and Bill Long of the WY G&F;when it happened. They assumed that if I hadn't have shot that eventually the wolf would have flanked me to pick up my scent and then booked. Either way they didn't blame me for shooing them off with my rifle. I taught that wolf at least to fear people...

Wolf hater: You can't control the weather and disease. You can try to control the murdering of our livestock,

pgwriter: Can you name a bigger murderer to livestock than humans? So, let me get this straight - you hate wolves because you don't like competition?

Wolf 101:

Wolves will pass up domestic livestock 99 times out of 100 in favor of wild prey. Their lives are filled with rituals and the "conversation of death" has been bred out of domestic stock for thousands of years. When a wolf initiates this ritual, it's met with dumbness and this confuses the wolf. Any expert will tell you wolves prefer wild prey to domestic stock any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The wolves who do prey on livestock are usually unable to hunt for various reasons; crippled or damaged in some way and unable to hunt.

Wolf hater: Our great grandfather & grandfathers tried to kill of the big populations of this predator for a reason.

pgwriter: Yes, and if you understood a little history you'd know it had little to do with wolves. They killed wolves for what they thought wolves might do - not what they did. Just like they slaughtered the buffalo by the thousands and left their bodies to rot in the sun. It was a means to an end; to rid the continent of indigenous people who depended on the buffalo for survival. Your great grandfathers didn't want their (non-indigenous) cattle to have to compete with the indigenous buffalo for grazing land. So, quit griping about non-indigenous Canadian wolves - you haven't a leg to stand on as you can't have it both ways.

Wolf Hater: there populations are growing rapidly and it won't be long before they start attacking people just like the mountain lions in Cal.

pgwriter: I can see you know about as much about wolves as you do about history and grammar. With human encroachment, wolves will vacate. They want nothing to do with us. They simply leave. Big cats will hold their ground. They hunt by stalking, wolves hunt cooperatively by coursing. Big cats come together and mate - then the male is on his way. Wolves mate and their offspring are lovingly raised by the entire pack with the alpha male playing a key role in their development. There are many distinct differences between wolves and big cats. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

Wolf hater: It is already to late but actions need to be taken before it is way to late....

pgwriter: (?) so, there's a difference between "too late" and "way too late"? That's like saying, "I went on vacation once and the water came right up to the shore" or, "Nothing hurts worse than pain." You make no sense here. The term "late" is definitive. It stands alone. There's no gray area here, you're either late or not.

You failed to do any homework and it seems as if you were taught what to think, not how to think. It takes no effort or intelligence to adopt someone else's view. Why don't you research both sides of the issue then draw your own conclusions?

prwriter

It is interesting that you weren't cited for shooting to scare the wolf, as I understand they are not to be harrased either unless they are in the act of killing. They come too close to people to be really afraid of scent. A family in Meteetsee had a pack den a few hundred yards from their house last spring. The Mom begged Bangs to move them, he said , "nope we don't relocate them until they get into trouble". Presumably killing cattle in the front yard is not getting into trouble. She showed pictures of the cattle covered with anchored down blue tarps to try to protect the evidence until someone came to verify or deny. By the time all of that is done of course you some mighty big stinking carcasses to dispose of to hopefully prevent their return. Then in a few days it is all to do over again.
What if that had been a kid going to milk the cow or bring back the milk? And please do not tell me we have no right to let our kids outside on our own properties, the wolves have the right of way. Country kids still have chores.
Obviously you do not feel that wolves belong every place they once lived, so why here instead of where you are? Why not just a few everywhere instead of a handfull of people being required to make the sacrifice for the whole country?
Frankly I don't believe we have seen anything yet, remember we are only a few years into an experiment that has never been done before, bringing in lots and lots of rapidly reproducing predators to live among people as wild animals.
This is an experiment that should have been done on a very small scale to begin with. I suspect FWS and their wolf groups knew that the problems would be so great that they could never get more in.
I challenge any of you to go back and read the inconsistencies between what was propsed, what was done and even between what is said on the FSW website from time to time.
And anyone who thinks there is not a lot of hatred toward ranchers read the comments on Ralph Maughan's wolf website.

pgwriter:
Hey jackass i can't wait to see you in line with everyone else that was pro wolf the first time one of your tree hugging partners is killed by a wolf. You will all be begging for some action to be taken.

As far as my grammer, I got my point accross and obviously you have nothing better to do than to cross my t's and dot my i's. This is a discussion on wolves not grammer. gfy

The reason wolves don't attack humans is because canines have super keen noses, with the wolf being the head of the pack.Sort of like the cannibals of the S. Pacific, they too wouldn't eat the "stinking white settlers". But like anything that is opportunistic, they can probably smell many other a tasty meal.

Ahhh, but Tim, wolves do attack and kill humans, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.

All this talk about wolves attacking humans is really not based on any factual evidence whatsoever. I would Like for Marion to name ONE, just one verified report of a grey wolf killing a human on the North American continent. The fact of the matter is that there is no account. This belief is frankly quite ignorant, I'm sorry if that sounds offensive but its the truth. Just like these guys saying that the wolves are eating all the elk. If any of these people would look at the data of both elk mortalities and hunter harvest in the recent years they still wouldn't believe it because facts are of no interest to them. Facts are: 1) Elk harvest numbers in Idaho and Montana have been near record numbers in recent years. 2) Black bears predate far heavier on elk calves in a three to four day period than wolves do all year. 3) Fire suppression has reduced available forage for elk in certain regions considerably reducing carrying capacity in these areas.

There is simply no data to support the claim that wolves have a detrimental impact on elk numbers. Other factors contribute far more to the fluctuation in elk numbers than do wolves.

Look you dont have to love them or embrace them. When they are delised, go and get a tag to harvest one of them. Just remember that when you purchase your tag, you are saying to everyone that these wolves are now a wildlife resource valuable to their perspective states. Shooting one on a whim without a tag will be considered poaching wildlife, and no-one sympathizes with a poacher. This has been the goal of the USFWS since the beginning.

Look, realistically, wolves are about as distributed on the landscape as human development will allow. The limiting factor to wolf dispursal and occupation on the landscape is human development. To want them to live in places that they do not currently occupy will ultimately be extremely detrimental not only to those particular wolves but all wolves. They will end up just getting into trouble, being shot, and will lead to greater angst over wolves. The numbers we have now are sufficient to maintaining a self sustaining populations over the region. Despite the rhetoric, I believe that the states will manage them properly and never allow their numbers to fall anywhere near the re-listing threshold.

Wolf lovers, go and howl some up on a starry night. Wolf haters, get a tag and go bag one. Either way, wolves are here to stay.

Here you go Matt, the most recent. I know that John J. Audubon's report of one of their men being killed by a wolf can't be trusted by an wolf lover. Don't know how you missed this one, it was in all of the news.

http://www.cbc.ca/sask/features/wolves/2.html

For all I can gather on this story, there has been no official determination made as to Kenton Carnegie's cause of death. Which is really besides the point. And if so, lets just say for the sake of argument that this wolf did kill this man...

More people have died falling on sharpened pencils.

Marion, I am not a wolf lover, I respect and esentially "love" all wildlife. I view wildlife in general as a valuable, plentiful, and renewable resource. I filled all my tags last year and dont exactly hug trees. I believe there is a place for wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Yes wolves need to be managed. If a few wolves get into trouble, lets take those wolves out of the picture. The facts are that most wolves stay out of trouble. I guess my point here is that this issue, like most, is not black and white, there are always shades of grey. Hatred is often spawned from clinging to that black and white, right or wrong outlook. Nothing productive or good ever comes from hatred Marion, and I know that deep down underneath all your rhetoric and language to rile up granola lovin' bunny-huggers, you understand.

I posted the first article I came to for your education, and it has been confirmed since.
As for "a few wolves" getting in trouble, FWS themselves killed over 200 wolves last year, almost DOUBLE the number removed from Yellowstone over 42 years. Who knows how many they missed.
It is not the wolves I hate, it is the idea that bunches of people from safely far away dumping their dream on a few others and then tell us we have to pay all of the costs for their entertainment.
Most of you care less about the wolves or any of the wildlife impacted by them. You like the feeling of controlling other people's lives, that is what the ESA is all about now days.

In Marion's above comment, I think that this statement is the clearest, most honest summary of the heart of this cultural conflict:

"It is not the wolves I hate, it is the idea that bunches of people from safely far away dumping their dream on a few others and then tell us we have to pay all of the costs for their entertainment."

Thank you for that, Marion.

I don't agree that they are doing it for the feeling of control and power, though. I think it's just being thoughtless, which is itself a moral shortcoming.

But, out of sight, out of mind! I guess it's hard for a wolf enthusiast in Houston or Pittsburgh to really stop and think about folks out here who are negatively affected by wolves. Or, if they've been persuaded that these folks out here who are harmed (not bit or killed by wolves but harmed in other ways) are "freeloaders" or "welfare cowboys" or whatever other label some people use to try to de-humanize or de-value them.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote something about the truth being in the particulars, and that if we want to deceive people we should avoid the details and stick to generalities.

Lumping people under a broad label like "welfare ranchers" who don't deserve to be in business if just such a tactic. Sure, you can find a few, but get to know some of the good ones and you'll see how inaccurate the generalization really is.

As the t-shirt says, "Stereotypes Are A Real Time-Saver!"

Of course, if you get to know them and a little doubt creeps into your dogma (or wolfma?) then what? Does your whole worldview unravel? Have to scrape a bunch of bumper stickers off the minivan? Or maybe acknowledge that there is some fundamental unfairness, as Marion points out, in "dumping your dreams" on someone else? And maybe have to do something to make it right.

Of course, we can turn that microscope around and ask Marion and Wolf Hater and colleagues to get to know a few wolf lovers, see things from their perspective, too. Maybe an exchange program like they do with Catholic and Protestant kids in Northern Ireland?

I know some folks out there are thinking that death loss compensation is the thing that "makes it right," but you ought to read this insightful article by Cat Urbigkit (Sublette Examiner 22 Jan 04) and reconsider:

http://www.sublette.com/examiner/v3n43/v3n43s2.htm

Anyway, thanks Marion for such a clear statement of what's going on here. Folks like to think it's a matter of technical solutions -- get the right kind of guard dogs, the right fence, what have you, but we can't get down to that technical level when there is so much ill-will due to 20-odd years of inflamed rhetoric and "dream dumping." (Marion, you better copyright that term!)

Thank you Steve. I think the following description from Mrs. Urbigkit's article is the best though:
"This authority-without-responsibility is one reason the wolf needs to be managed as a predator in the majority of the state of Wyoming."
I think "authority without responsibility" is the best description of the ESA, I have ever heard. I didn't have net back in those days and did not see that quote before.
I realize that I tend to stereotypes wolf proponents and other environmentalists also. I get really fuzzed up at the "welfare rancher" label, not only because I come from a ranching family, but also because they do pay lease money, they do have to do a lot of maintenance and care on land and waterways, etc. They provide winter habitat on private property for I believe the number was approximately 65% of the wildlife.
Those who scream the loudest have not until now had to pay any use fee for back country use, and they certainly are not responsible for helping control weeds or anything like that.
But basically it goes back to the "authority without responsibility" in the whole ESA thing. We have seen dramatic changes from the wolves in the 13 years since the first bunch were turned loose, but no matter how bad the outcome may be now or 5 years from now, we out here have the responsibility not only to make it all right, but to protect enough wolves to make those who want to visit them happy.....and of course bear the entire cost ourselves.