THE DETAILS OF DELISTING
Wolf Hunts in the West Inevitable, But Perhaps Years Away
By Peter Metcalf, 2-11-08
 |
|
 | |
| A female wolf from Yellowstone National Park's Druid pack. Photo by Jim Peaco, courtesy YNP. | |
|
State proposals for wolf hunts this fall continue to move forward in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho in advance of the anticipated removal of gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act later this month, and all three states include public hunting as an integral component of their federally approved wolf management plans.
But hunters might not want to make plans to hunt wolves anytime soon.
“We fully anticipate litigation over delisting that could last several years,” Ed Bangs, Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says.
Until all legal challenges are resolved, the wolves would remain a federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act and protected from public hunting.
Despite the likelihood of legal challenges, states like Montana have initiated the planning process for future wolf hunts in order to have sufficient time to work with the public on the details of a biologically and politically complex situation.
“It seems awkward to a lot of people that we would be having this conversation ahead of delisting, but we wanted to give ourselves and the public a lot of time to work on this,” says Carolyn Sime, the wolf coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Montana’s draft regulations set a total hunter harvest quota of 130 wolves—about one third of Montana’s estimated 2007 wolf population of 400—to be harvested in 2008 by firearm or archery. The tentative season would run from September 15 to November 30, but would close within 24 hours of the quota being reached. The draft regulations divide the state into three wolf management units, each with specific quotas. Trapping would be barred until the second season.
Sime calls the draft regulations a “pulse check on what the regulations could look like” and expects some revisions based on the public comments. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks will continue to accept public comments on the regulations through February 13th.
Critics argue that the states need to commit to maintaining higher wolf populations and for better science before hunting begins.
“There is very little science on the impacts of shooting wolves in terms of pack structure and social behavior,” says Derek Goldman, Missoula-based field representative for the Endangered Species Coalition, a coalition of 400 environmental organizations.
While Goldman believes Montana has done the best job of the three states in guaranteeing the viability of wolf populations in its management plans, he would like to see the state move slower in its plans to hunt.
“We think it is early to start hunting wolves in Montana given that they’re just now returning from the brink of extinction,” he says.
The Endangered Species Coalition and other environmental groups contend that Wyoming and Idaho will use public hunting to drastically reduce wolf populations to the minimum number of breeding pairs allowed under federal guidelines, which require a minimum of 100 individuals, including 10 breeding pairs in each state. The groups claim a regional population of 2,000 to 3,000 wolves is needed to ensure wolves’ genetic viability and long-term survival. The latest estimates for the combined population as of the end of 2007 is 1,545 in the tri-state region.
If wolf numbers fall below the federal thresholds, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would issue an emergency re-listing of gray wolves and assume management responsibilities from the states.
Bangs takes issue with the assertions that wolf populations will be reduced to unsustainable levels under state management. The three states’ management commitments aim for a combined population between 900 and 1215 wolves, Bangs says.
“Clearly that is a recovered population,” he says. “There won’t be any genetic or connectivity problems.”
The state of Montana arrived at its proposed hunter harvest quota by looking at population trends for 2006 and 2007, including birth, migration and death rates. Death rates included natural deaths, lethal removals such as for livestock predation, vehicle collisions, and other manners of human caused mortality. The state then determined how many wolves it would need to harvest in 2008 to maintain wolf populations around their current levels, Sime says.
The state has not set long-term population goals, but is committed to maintaining at least 150 individuals and 15 breeding pairs. Montana’s wolf management plan calls for hunter harvest quotas to be determined on an annual basis in August based on continuous wolf population monitoring.
One limitation to the models used to determine the quotas is the state of Idaho, since it serves as a significant source of wolves for Montana. If Idaho starts hunting its wolves, it is likely that the number of migrants to Montana would decrease, Sime says. It “highlights the need for us to proceed cautiously.”
Tom France, the director of the Northern Rockies office of the National Wildlife Foundation thinks Montana’s proposed hunt is just that, a cautious approach. “We think it is a very good plan,” he says.
But the National Wildlife Foundation does not currently support delisting the gray wolf, because of Wyoming’s management plan.
The state of Wyoming has divided its wolf population into two distinct classifications based on geography. Wolves in the northwest corner of the state are classified as trophy game animals and would be managed through licensed trophy game hunting, just like other predators such as black bears and mountain lions. In the rest of the state, wolves would be classified as predators and could be legally shot or killed on sight using other approved methods by the state year round and without any form of permission from the state.
Wyoming’s designation of predator has raised the concerns of many environmental organizations like the National Wildlife Foundation and the Sierra Club.
“We’re concerned about the dual classification that classifies wolves as predators in the rest of the state,” says Melanie Stein, associate regional representative for the Sierra Club in Wyoming.
The Sierra Club also has concerns about the limited boundaries of the trophy game animal region and questions the state’s commitment to maintaining a viable population of gray wolves, Stein says. The Sierra Club argues a higher number of wolves is necessary to maintain a healthy population in Wyoming due to limited connectivity between wolves there and wolves elsewhere in Idaho and Montana.
“Ultimately we all want them to be managed by the states. We don’t want to see them stay on the ESA just to be protected,” she says.
Wyoming is still accepting public comments through Feb. 14th on two parts of its draft regulations to manage wolves as a trophy big game animal.
The public comment period for Idaho Fish and Game’s draft plan to manage wolves through hunting, just like other big game species such as deer and elk, closed on Jan. 31st. The analysis of the public comments and the draft plan will be considered by the state fish and game commission at its March 5th meeting.
If the commission approves the draft, it will then determine the rules for a big game wolf hunting season. This includes the season, bag limits and method of harvest, such as rifles or archery. The public would then have an opportunity to comment on the rules only as part of the general public comment period on all big game species hunting rules held every summer.
Idaho’s proposed hunt drew national attention last year when Governor Butch Otter declared he would be the first in line to purchase a wolf license and the state would cull its population by over 800 wolves to the federal minimum of 100. Otter has since softened his stance, indicating Idaho would need to maintain higher populations for overall species health and to prevent an emergency re-listing.
According to Steve Nadeau, the large carnivore manager for Idaho Fish and Game who overseas Idaho’s wolf management, the state has not established a long-term population goal in terms of overall numbers or breeding pairs. Instead, the state has established harvest goals designed to reduce conflicts between wolves and livestock and wolves and other big game species, such as elk and keep wolf populations steady.
“In areas where our big game populations are struggling and not meeting objectives—and one of the primary reasons they are not meeting objectives is predation—we can help them through regulated hunting,” Nadeau says.
Whenever wolves are eventually delisted, public hunting is almost certain to take place across the Northern Rockies. The Fish and Wildlife Service has always encouraged states to include hunting as a management tool once they assume responsibility for managing the species, Bangs says.
“We are a firm believer that hunting is a viable management tool for all wildlife populations including wolves once they’re delisted,” Bangs said. “We don’t care what states decide to do as long as states maintain wolf populations well above recovery levels.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Our immediate challenge is to obstruct the implementation of the recent 10j rule revision by the FWS that essentially delists wolves on the sly.
If FWS doesn't slip in some way to make it legal, the consumption industries and their toadies will simply do it illegally--on the sly. I wish I had a nickel for every redneck who has winked, nodded and nudged his wife as he spoke of the shoot, shovel and shut up program.
There is no honor among the anti-environmentalists...
NWF has bought fully into the "conservation biology" social model. Spreading wolves above and beyond, with all the antisocial implications, makes NWF staff and their foundational funders all warm and fuzzy. Same deal for most of the other eco-players, who have to be just quivering over the possibility that wolves will successfully cross the Snake and the Red Desert for starters. Just think of all the EAJA loot and fundraising possibilities!
The people of Wyoming had the guts to draw a line in the sage and say, here there be wolves, and here be reality. Sometimes standing for a principle -- in this case, appropriate wildlife management -- is a good thing.
Killing for sport is inevitable when you have a culture that can't think of anything beyond themselves as anything but objects to be used and abused.
The wolf is caught in human hatred and self-loathing. If it's not livestock "depridation" than it's an impact on game animals. If it's not game animals than all they're left with is their naked hatred of wilderness. These people will go to great lengths to destroy all vestiges of the wild, and they must be stopped.
You are incorrect. The people of Wyoming didn't draw a line in the sand; it was the Stockgrowers, the Outfitters, and the so-called Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife that drew a line in the sand, and, having power over wildlife and land use policy in the State, got their representatives in the Legislature and their lackey in the Governor's office to support their minority view.
Principle is hardly involved; it's pure greed for power.
Virtually every statistically valid survey of Wyoming residents has shown that a majority of Wyoming residents support the presence of wolves and grizzly bears as long as conflicts are managed. Quite frankly, the conflicts are over-managed, but that's another issue.
You might want to check up on your facts before you make false statements.
RH
Eureka!!! I have the solution!! The last of horse flesh slaughter is about to be extinguished in the USA. And we are up to our hay shortage in horses unwanted because they are too old to use, too angry or mean, unridable, of poor conformation, recession unaffordable, and all you can do is take them out a ways from water sources, get a backhoe to dig a hole, shoot 'em and bury 'em. Lawsuits, biofuels, mad cow, all put the rendering plants out of business and they no longer are available to haul off anything but your restaurant grease trap holdings. Great expanses of land are needed just to bury the ever expanding and aging horse population now that meat for Belgium and France is not possible by law. So we send the horses to Ed Bangs, and he can feed them to the wolves. Turn them out in the public domain, get a wolf feeding tax credit, and let ole Lobo do his thang. It will all be natural, the horse will not suffer for more than a few days, and the carrion will feed the rest of the food chain.
The Yellowstone wolves were an exotic introduction, not a reintroduction. The natural range expansion of Alberta wolves was ongoing, but the political payoff was too slow. It was a Clinton-Babbitt payoff deal, and we all know it. Clinton made the Green Promise, and paid the Green Debt. But he did screw Babbitt in the process, as poor little ranch scion and national park concessionaire Bruce was supposed to become a Supreme Court Justice, and that did not happen. Great medical care kept the justices from illness and death on Clinton's watch. Bruce got hosed by best science and Bill. Ironic. But expected.
The best question to ask Obama is if he is in favor of grizzly bear reintroduction into California, the Golden Bear state, almost 50% of its land in public ownership, with great, vast wild areas and abundant food for the great omnivore. If he is, and promises to vigorously promote that goal, I would vote for him and take my lumps in the cradle to grave social services part of the platform. I would think Kodiak bears that use the marine littoral so much would be perfect for the Big Sur, and Canadian Rockies Grizz for the Sierras, and maybe some Yellowstone surplus bears (sorry Montana and Wyoming hunters) for the Cascades and northern Coast Range-Siskiyous region. That would provide a degree of genetic diversity, abilities to use native food sources. California voters can then pay for all the freeway overpasses and fencing that will be needed to prevent accidental death by auto/truck. Sudden oak death disease needs to be stopped so there is sufficient mast to support the bears and the deer and wild hogs feeding on the acorns. If the fishermen of California do their bit, a few sea lions should wash up on the beach with regularity for extra calories. The whale-ship collision rate will rise as whale numbers become greater, and those floating up on the beach will also benefit great bears. The bears can smell those 50 miles away. If food runs low, just have th Navy use some sonar for a few days. Some accessible rookeries will be impacted, but they are a post bear development, and are not natural, anyway.
All a daydream. CA has those 60 or so super delegates, the big stick in the electoral college (more than all the New West combined) and Obama is about winning an uphill run against the entrenched indebtedness to the Clintonites. It is Daly politics against Eugene MacCarthy politics. The Daly deal seems to win when it shouldn't. And both are from Illinois long ago.
Temple Grandin says that the killing bite of a wolf or dog is without emotion. Hardwired response. Entirely natural. The chase is learned, the tactics and strategy are learned, the prey is learned, but the killing bite is who they are. We are in the chase part of the leadup to the political conventions. The killing bite will be without emotion.
The Russians say that they kill the wolf not because it is gray, but because it kills their sheep. Your job might provide for groceries from Albertsons by way of a pay check, but a livestock raiser's check comes from selling his animals used to convert grass into meat. They kill the wolf because it takes from them, not because they hate wilderness or gray or wildlife. It is a struggle for life, on both parts. And the rancher has an out: sell the ranch to a rich guy or a developer. The Feds own so much that it distorts the supply in terms of demand. The Rancher cannot sell it as a livestock ranch because predation has taken the profits. So he sells it to who pays the most money. To avoid paying capital gains taxes, the rancher can then use the ranch money to buy apartment houses with a rental stream, on a 1031 exchange. All those new people living on the ranch will need services from low pay employees who live in urban rental housing. Selling the ranch grows your town in a way you might not like by expanding low wage service jobs for people who need public subsidy to exist (a refund stimulus even though they pay no taxes---and the ranch seller avoided most of his taxes to the 1031 exchange, which is used by NGOs to solicit ranch buys for sale to the Feds--which exacerbates the whole land affordability and availibility issue).
I cannot tell a wolf lover that his or her object of anthropogenic affections is turning the New West into a giant amenity subdivision if he or she does not want to hear, believe, or see that. One or two ranch families becomes 10 or 200 hundred families with the requisite number of llamas, dogs, horses, cats, and the wolves will come for them when they need to, when there are more wolves than prey. If you moved to Idaho, Montana or Wyoming because there are wolves, you are the problem, the unintended consequence, and the blight on the land. Under your house is the worst of clear cuts, the worst of range management. The extra parking places, stores, schools, streets, all are due to your moving to be close to a wolf, making you the fouler of the great nest, and the producer of further conflicts for all habitats and critters.
I was simply happy to see another species returned to its original habitat.
I have to fence my place to keep cattle out of my hair; but the anti-intellectuals who want to kill all predators do not want to accept the responsibility for keeping the predators out of their place--or their publicly underwritten open range, I mean...
Let those on the front lines in the conflict do the shooting, and the problem is solved. It's happened before.
It is absolutely criminal what "biologists" have done to the wildlife surrounding Yellowstone. The Dunoir Valley northwest of Dubois, Wyoming used to be home to about 150 moose. They are now extinct. Gone. Eliminated. The Northern Yellowstone elk herd numbered about 19,000 when the wolf was introduced. There are now less than 8,000. That is happening in all areas with large wolf populations. What are they going to eat in a few more years? Their official count is over 1,500 wolves in the three states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. The US Fish and Wildlife Service official figures are that each wolf kills approximately 1.9 elk per month per wolf, or about 20 elk per year. Do the math. That is 30,000 elk each year being fed to a wolf which is not a native. Elk herds are going down, wolf numbers are coming up. A major crash is ahead and the USFWS would like to hand this hot baton over to the states so the crash can come under their jurisdiction.
I live near the Dunoir and go in quite a bit on horseback. I never fail to see moose.
By the way, moose first got into trouble in the Dunoir when Ab Cross slaughtered a bunch of them in the early 60s--G&F;never prosecuted him, unfortunately--and then tore out all the willows for his cows.
The extinction of moose in Dunoir Valley was reported to me by Bud Betts who lives there. They used to give about 20 moose permits in the area. They now give NONE. As recently as 2001 the moose harvest in Wyoming was 1,215. In 2006 it was 636 and that includes statewide. In the areas of high wolf densities the moose permits available are near zero because the moose are in serious trouble.
"Yellowstone Animal Census, 1912, lists various animals and their numbers, but under Gray Wolves the total is listed as NONE" (Hornaday, Our Vanishing Wildlife, pg 336). "Strong evidence shows that wolves rarely entered Yellowstone in the 77 years prior to 1913" (National Park Service Documents, The Wolves of Yellowstone" Weaver 1978).
I wish you wolf-worshippers had half as much concern for other wildlife as you do for predators. When we get too many bears, too many wolves, too many coyotes, and too many lions, what are they going to eat and how are we going to control their numbers?
Bud's been saying that for years; I still see moose or moose sign whenever I go into the Dunoir. He must be looking in the direction of the Cross Ranch.
The Dunoir is part of moose hunt area 6, which covers the entire upper Wind River Valley west of the border with the Wind River Indian Reservation. Moose licenses (type 1) are issued generally for the entire area, not just one, and especially not the Dunoir. I have never seen a special restriction on moose hunting in the Dunoir.
G&F;did issue a type 2 moose cow license for the section of area 6 that includes the Fitzpatrick Wilderness--an area into which wolves have not yet occupied--but has quit issuing those licenses because the moose habitat there has been so poor.
We'll see how many licenses G&F;issues for moose during the March season setting meetings.
I've always said it would be good if outfitters would learn something about habitat ecology (range for you non-scientists). We have two problems with moose here: the drought and poor regeneration of willows and other riparian vegetation, and overbrowsing. Because willows aren't regenerating, their nutritional value is much less, and it is certainly affecting moose. I have yet to see twin calves here, and that's a sign of mediocre nutrition, not predation. That's why we have been pushing willow regeneration projects both with the Forest Service and G&F;, but that involves fire, and fire in riparian areas is close to houses. The Wind River District of the Shoshone National Forest started a willow burning project on the upper Wind River last summer; it's a five year project.
I spent all fall in the East Fork, which is the home of the East Fork wolf pack, and I consistently saw moose on the trail running from the trailhead to camp.
Five years ago, we had a die-off of moose in the Upper Country, mostly in the East Fork; 11 moose were found. I found one of them--it was a cow yearling. All had died; not a single one had been killed by a predator. We have no idea what the problem was, but some disease clearly got into the moose population.
One problem with moose in the Dunoir we have not mentioned, and I'll mention it now, is cattle. Ab Cross slaughtered moose in the early 60s and tore out all the willows on his property to make more room for cows. Until recently, cattle ranged into the upper Dunoir, the existing Special Management Unit, and cattle grazing had a significant impact on willows, especially in Dundee Meadows below Bonneville Pass. However, the Diamond G pulled its cattle out of the upper Dunoir because of wolves, and those willows are beginning to return. As the willows return, so will moose--assuming the weather cooperates with lots of snow.
RH
I suspect his information is supplied by agricultural gurus whose special interests have no effect on the propaganda they provide...
Contrary to your assertions, elk numbers are not declining. In fact, they are rising in all 3 states, to record number in many hunting districts. Please check with F&G;departments and you will be told the same thing.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
It is true that overall populations look good, because they lump all the areas together to make them look good. If you separate out the areas that have a lot of wolves it tells a much different story.
Hoskins says there is a moose habitat problem. If you want to hear someone on his soapbox about that, go to the wild game butcher in Dubois (I forget his name). He takes pictures of all moose brought in to his shop and he showed us some pictures of the moose brought in from the Jackson District (supposedly the poor habitat area). They are as healthy and fat as they could possibly be. It is not a habitat problem.
The average age of elk has increased dramatically and birth rates have decreased. An article in the Billings Gazette tells about a study which showed a huge decrease in the number of elk from both bear and wolf predation, and a corresponding decrease in cow elk fertility. http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/02/16/news/state/20-wolf.txt
No, the "facts" and science are on the side of wolf control. Any animal which is put in an area that it was not historically in is going to cause problems. At this present rate the ungulates, with the exception of bison, will soon be gone from the Yellowstone ecosystem. The study I referred to earlier was regarding the elk in Yellowstone's Northern Range. The study showed lower pregnancy rates in cow elk in areas with high wolf densities. 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. The winter count conducted on Dec. 30, 2007 found 6,738 elk.
Anything you wouldn't say to prove your point and harm wolves, Maury..?
http://www.saveourelk.com/
Idahopilgrim
I have hundreds of documented attacks by Wolves in my files.
I'm not a hunter! But would you rather have a quick shot thru your kill zone or would you prefer to be mauled and eaten alive? Imagine the fright! Our own Government a few years ago had a bounty on these same Wildlife Terrorists. History does repeat itself, I wonder why our Forefathers saw a need to eliminate the Wolf.
idahopilgrim
Well, as a hunter, I think it would be better were there no exotic, alien cattle and domestic sheep in the Rocky Mountains that take millions of AUMs and habitat away from big game animals and other wildlife.
One way to look at wolf depredation on livestock is as one of nature's way to eliminate destructive alien species. And quite frankly, it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy than Jim Magagna or gal than Mary Toman.
Having spent 15 years scientifically studying wolves, wolf ecology, and wolf management, and 3 winters on the ground in the Yukon studying wolves and wolf control, I can tell you that the only thing "canadian" about "canadian wolves" is that they are wolves that happen to inhabit Canada. The notion that "canadian" wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone are somehow different from wolves in Yellowstone 100 years ago has no scientific basis. The old multitude of sub-species designations, such as you find in Young and Goldman's The Wolves of North America (1944), has been cleaned up considerably through genetics and the study of DNA. The fact is, fundamentally a wolf is a wolf is a wolf. Genetic variations among wolves in different areas of North America are relatively minor and reflect regional adaptations to prey base, environment, and climate, and, in eastern Canada, hybridization with coyotes.
Elk feedgrounds are nothing but livestock style feedlots and disease ghettos. They maintain brucellosis in elk at high levels and will cause an epidemic of chronic wasting disease when that disease finally shows up.
Quite frankly, if you pile elk up like sacrificial lambs on the feedgrounds, one has to expect that wolves will show up.
Feedgrounds need to be closed, and closed now.
I need to address something you claimed above. You referred to the owner of Wind River Meats in Dubois. I won't drag his name in to this. He is an excellent butcher, and his shop has won numerous awards for the quality of his products.
However, he is not a biologist or wildlife ecologist. Showing pictures of moose and claiming that they aren't as "fat as they could be" is not a scientific statement. Hell, I'm not as fat as I could be, and wouldn't want to be either.
As hard as it is for outfitters to understand this, big game animals aren't livestock. Comparisons of the visible fat on a freshly-killed moose carcass with current market standards of high quality beef are simply invalid.
I also remember the same individual, along with others, complaining that the numbers of elk carcasses coming into his shop over the last few years was due to wolves and grizzly bears killing the elk. He made this statement at a Forest planning meeting. He forgot that the reason that carcasses originally increased dramatically at his shop was because G&F;implemented a long running (1998-2003) elk reduction program on the Wiggins Fork Elk Herd, targeting elk cows and calves. G&f;sold an additional 1500 cow-calf licenses, most of which were filled, and many of those dead elk were brought to Wind River Meats for processing. The herd reduction program created a windfall for his business, and other businesses in Dubois as well.
It stands to reason that when G&F;closed the program down in 2003, the number of processed elk carcasses would also go way down. And they did. The windfall was over.
Except wolves and grizzlies, not G&F;for ending the herd reduction program, got blamed for it.
I would also point out that if you look at page 20 in the 2008 G&F;hunting applications booklet, you'll see that G&F;is offering late season cow calf tags in most of the elk hunt areas in northwestern Wyoming--wolf country. One would think that if wolves were wiping out the region's elk, then G&F;wouldn't be trying to reduce herds with cow-calf tags.
It's unfortunate that discussions of wolves are profoundly irrational. While I think that outfitters provide a valuable service, there is no doubt that the refusal to understand wildlife ecology, the refusal to accept scientific facts (arising from an ignorance of science), and the determination to treat wildlife as livestock are all going to combine to put the industry in a real hurt in a few years. Chronic wasting disease, when it hits the elk feedgrounds, is going to hit big game outfitting west of the Continental Divide hard, real hard.
And outfitters will have no one but themselves to blame.
RH
There have been no credible reports of wolves killing a human--ever; but people kill wolves--without reason--at every opportunity.
I predict there will be at least one incident where a wolf-hater kills a wolf-supporter--here in the intermountain west within the next four or five years...
No credible reports ever? Anywhere?
That's a pretty sweeping statement.
See this excerpt from Diane Boyd:
http://www.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=24
"The attacks in India were the most dramatic and severe: In Uttar Pradesh during a 2-year period (1996–1997), a wolf or wolves killed or seriously injured 74 humans, mostly children under the age of 10 years (Mech 1998). This may sound like a tabloid headline, but the attacks were well documented by wolf authorities."
I support wolf conservation, and want us to do a good job of coexisting with them. I also strive to see them in all their complexity, and that means I have to recognize that a 100 pound intelligent, social canid is well equipped to hunt, attack, and maybe kill humans.
It's clear that habituation and food conditioning can lead wolves to get very comfortable around humans. Such wolves can be dangerous, as the record shows. While the case of Kenton Carnegie is still debatable (wolves or bear?), there are other examples of North American wolves non-fatally attacking humans, evidently as prey.
For a concise summary, see:
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/techb13p1.pdf
As a practical matter, it's not much comfort to point out that these apparently predatory attacks were unsuccessful. That's to the credit of the intended prey doing a good job fighting off the wolf.
Blanket denials about the potential danger of wolves do not help your cause.
To shoot them in CASE ty depredate or because they MIGHT depredate makes no sense. I am all for livestock owners to be able to manage their livestock in a way that protects their business. But to purchase new helicopters with MY (and your) tax dollars in order to hire sharp shooters (with my and your tax dollars) to shoot whole packs of wolves from the air before they've done anything other than be a wolf is nuts and expensive. I believe the Gov. of Idaho wants to kill "hundreds" of them... because they're killing elk??? I'd rather my tax money go to helping people get health care, food and adequate shelter. Check out how much it costs to purchase a plane and guns and staff to look for wolves from above and slaughter them from the sky. Not cheap.
Fact 1: The Environmental Impact Statement on the introduction considered the environmental impact of 100 wolves on the Yellowstone ecosystem.
Fact 2: The Final Rule For Introduction was for an experimental, non-essential population of 100 wolves.
Fact 3: The Final Rule proscribed that when there were 100 wolves with at least 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive years the wolves would be delisted and management would be turned over to the states.
Fact 4: The criteria for delisting was achieved in 2001.
Fact 5: Wyoming Wolf Management Plan guarantees the protection of 15 packs of wolves within Wyoming. In spite of that the USFWS continues to blame Wyoming for the slow delisting.
Conclusion 1: The present population numbers of wolves exceeds by more than 5 times the EIS, meaning the impact of 500 wolves has a exponentially greater detrimental affect on wildlife. These numbers of wolves are a violation of all environmentally sound studies conducted under the EIS for introduction. That is BREAKING THE LAW!
Conclusion 2: The failure of the USFWS to delist is a violation of law.
Conclusion 3: The wolf-worshippers don't care about the law. They lied to get wolves here and they will keep denying the impact of the wolf and will keep lying to protect all wolves until we don't have any wildlife left.
It is actually very interesting to read so many angry comments from those who defend the rights of cattle ranchers to utlize public lands for their profits, and find that those are the same people who demonize a private land owner's decision to build luxury homes even with large tracts of open space (Ameya...remember that debate?). I'm not in favor of or defending his project, I just find this interesting.
I'm far more in favor of an effort to return to a pre-European balance of nature...
http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/hunting/article/0,13199,1143151,00..html
Its source is clearly self-serving as well as unconvincing.
I see far more hatred by the wolfers toward the humans who dare disagree with them than I do for the wolves, no matter how much they have cost in destruction.
It is very hard for people who have built something to see it destroyed to make someone feel good, and provide them with entertainment. A carpenter would not like to see a building he built destroyed by termites, no mater how entertaining someone thought it was to watch them burrow thru the wood. By the same token those who have worked and donated to bring wildlife to the great numbers we had don't like to see the elk and moose melt in front of their eyes. Neither do ranchers like seeing the cattle or sheep they have raised destroyed for the entertainment of those who like to watch animals torn apart alive.
Even sadder, the wolfers are turning all of the bills over to the residents of the state to pay so they can use all of the millions (or should it be billions) raised to save the wolves to plant them elsewhere & destroy someone elses home and property.
there are only half a million people in Wyoming, I hope you enjoy paying for NYC entertainment a lot more than I do Robert.
By the way the wolves would be living their natural lives in the wilderness of Alberta, Canada if you hadn't insisted on hauling them in to be darted, poked, collared, chased, and killed. So when you want to blame someone for any killed wolf in the GYE, go look in the mirror.
Unlimited human breeding pairs / no limits or recommendations / Roughly 2.8 Million persons in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming alone.
And the elk, deer, moose and so many other specie are declining....why???
Wake up folks - you know as well as I do that our "invasion" of the wilderness, prairie, and West in general are the true culprits.
Humans take, take, take. Use, use, use. Develop, develop, develop. Dispose, dispose, dispose. And somehow we have no part to play, no responsibility for the problems in the West with animal habitat, water resources, and population health of so many animals? I don't care which side of this fence you are on with this argument...human population is a bigger problem than the wolf could ever be.
It will become more and more apparent as the years pass and the open lands we love becomes more scarce - along with the animals, birds, fish, etc.
You want to be concerned and outraged about something - I do - the overpopulation of the world! Quit breeding - especially some of the ignorant folk who have chose to comment here - you make me laugh! Oh, and before you comment - I do not have children nor will I be contributing to the population problem of the USA or of the world for that matter.
The new management policy is now...Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up.
Hopefully, lots of wolves will now begin to die.
If there has to be wolves...keep them in the big National Parks (i.e. Glacier, Yellowstone, Olympic, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain)...and when they step across the boundaries of those parks, they need to be elimnated...by anyone at any time.
That's wolf management that we can live with...especially our deer and elk herds.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Missoula, MT
My girl works for the Missoula County animal control, and less than two weeks ago, a rural resident called in to report wolves chasing elk through his yard...and wanted to know if animal control could do something about it. And this was less than 5 or 6 miles from downtown Missoula.
Those wolves were lucky...that I didn't live there. Some of them would be dead now if I had. And rural residents are going to learn that they must arm themselves...and be ready to do what wildlife officials will not. And that is to eliminate the wolf menace.
It's time to Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up!
Toby Bridges
LOBO Watch
Missoula, MT
It's about time.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH