SO SAYS THE MAN WHO MADE IT HAPPEN
Wolf Recovery Turned Out as Planned
By Bill Schneider, 4-17-08
 |
|
 | |
| Hank Fischer. Photo by Bill Schneider. | |
|
Some NewWest.Net readers might be a bit “overwolfed,” but I thought the views of the man who probably did more to return the Big Dog to the Rocky Mountain West than any other person on Earth could be interesting.
And surprisingly, to me at least, he thinks it all turned out about how he expected.
Back in the early 1990s when green groups and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) started working on the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan, which called for reintroducing the master predator into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, Hank Fischer was Northern Rockies rep for the Defenders of Wildlife. The historic reintroduction definitely wasn’t a one-man-show; many people and groups worked hard on it. But I happen to believe that without Hank’s hard work in bridging the ultra-controversial gap between conservationists and ranchers, all the time playing the right tune for skeptical politicians, the reintroduction probably wouldn’t have happened.
Hank has, incidentally, told me a couple of times that he doesn’t agree with me on this point, but I am writing that off to modesty.
If you want to read the whole story, the inside story of this epic eco-political victory, I recommend you find a copy of Hank’s book, Wolf Wars. (To order it, click here.) It’s an amazing story that clears up a lot of misinformation you hear on radio talk shows and see in online comment sections. For people just coming into the controversy, it’s definitely an entertaining and educational read.
Earlier this week, I interviewed Hank in my mobile office, otherwise known as my drift boat, while we flayed the waters of the Clark Fork. Fishing was bad, but conversation was good.
Asked how he thought it all turned out, Hank said, “About how I figured it would, but it happened a little faster than I expected.”
The wolf recovery plan didn’t include a timetable, he notes, “but look at what we have; ten years later, and we have 1,500 wolves.”
He attributes that success to three factors, top among them the wolf’s rapid reproduction rate and “the easy, accessible prey base,” referring to the thousands of elk that had never seen the master predator and didn’t know how to escape it.
No surprise on those two points for anybody following this controversy, but his third reason for the faster-than-expected recovery might surprise you. “Ranchers have accepted that wolves are here to stay, and they are now trying to figure out how to make it work.”
Acknowledging that the ranching community doesn’t like it, Hank believes most ranchers are now peacefully and economically dealing with the wolf once again being part of the western landscape.
Back in early 1990s, Hank traveled around to ranching communities and did the so-called “grassroots work” to listen to the livestock industry and work their concerns into the final plan as much as possible. “We tried not to become enemies of the livestock industry.”
And it worked. It’s hardly unanimous, he admits, but most ranchers have settled in with the wolf instead of considering it a threat to the ranching lifestyle.
As an aside, Hank thinks the lack of collaboration with ranchers is why wolf recovery in the Southwest is moving much more slowly, if not failing. The people advocating wolf recovery in Arizona and New Mexico aren’t trying to work with ranchers and understand their feelings and instead are trying to force the wolf onto them.
If wolf recovery fails there, he predicts, that will be the main reason.
Are we ready for delisting? Definitely, he says, although oddly, he doesn’t think delisting is a big deal for the wolf. “No matter what happens with delisting or the hunting seasons, a significant portion of the wolf population is going to die every year.”
The FWS, in fact, recently told NewWest.Net that for the past few years while the wolf was still an endangered species, 26 percent of the population died each year. Under any circumstances, that level of mortality will continue or increase.
Hank always had the “you have to kill wolves to save wolves” philosophy, which got him crosswise with other environmentalists. In fact, criticism from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups probably came closer to defeating the original introduction than opposition from the livestock industry.
Back then, Hank successfully pushed for reintroduced wolves to come back as an “experimental population” under the provisos of the Endangered Species Act, which meant more liberal rules for killing wolves during the recovery process. The enviro hardliners hated that idea.
Having more flexibility to kill wolves worked, though. Without the level of control we’ve had on problem wolves, those involved in livestock or pet depredation, there might be no acceptance from ranchers or politicians.
Today, ironically, some of the same groups and people who tried to prevent the original reintroduction 13 years ago are now leading the charge to stop or delay delisting. Again, Hank disagrees with them and supports the decision to delist wolves now.
Will they succeed in stopping delisting? “Absolutely not,” he insists. “I don’t even think they will be able to get an injunction to delay it. Unfortunately, it was very predictable that environmentalists would not support delisting.”
Here’s another bit of irony. Defenders of Wildlife, Hank’s former employer and the primary green group who fought the Sierra Club and others to allow the wolf to come back as an “experimental species” has now switched camps and joined them in their efforts to defeat or delay delisting.
Hank hasn’t worked for Defenders for many years, but still works for wolves (and grizzly bears and hunters and ranchers) at his new job with the National Wildlife Federation where he negotiates grazing allotment retirements. (More on that later.) Asked about this irony, he predicted that if he still worked for Defenders, he probably could get the group to support delisting instead of oppose it.
So, there you go. Amid the constant disagreement over wolf reintroduction, perhaps we can all agree that it’s interesting the way it has all turned out so far
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I suppose Hank was also the driver behind the "compensation" program, that is, after the Bailey family took it upon themselves to support it.
Fine, but the fact is, the comp program is far more valuable to Defenders as a PR sop, a free-media generator, than it is as a means of making livestock producers whole. Defenders could never buy the millions worth of ad inchage it gets for free through endless rote repetition in "news" about the "compensation" program...a program NOT supported by Defenders members directly, and of such a small scale it's not even a budget line-item. So yeah, I'm still cynical.
- - - - - - -
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
UPPER SNAKE REGION NEWS RELEASE
Idaho Falls, ID
Date: April 16, 2008
Contact: Gregg Losinski. 208-525-7290
No charges filed in wolf killing
No charges will be filed in a case involving the shooting of two wolves west
of Ashton on April 1.
“In my opinion, there is ‘reasonable doubt’ whether the wolves were, or were
not, molesting livestock or domestic animals,” said Karl H. Lewies, Fremont
County prosecuting attorney, in a letter to the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game.
The case stems from the killing of two male wolves. It is the first reported
case of wolves being shot in Idaho since they were removed from the
endangered species list on March 28.
Idaho Fish and Game conservation officers and the Fremont County prosecutor’s
office investigated the incident.
The first wolf shot was within view of the individual’s home and near the
landowner’s horses. The second wolf was killed a little more than a mile
from the man’s home and horses. After shooting the first wolf, the man had
pursued the second wolf on a snowmobile.
“I have determined that no charges will be filed,” Lewies wrote.
Since delisting, wolves have been classified as big game animals in Idaho.
Owners of livestock and domestic animals are allowed to kill wolves in the
act of attacking or molesting their animals. But wolves taken in this manner
must be reported to Fish and Game within 72 hours.
People concerned about how to respond to wolves or to request assistance
with wolves should contact the local Fish and Game office. The intent of
Idaho wolf depredation law is to allow people to protect their private
property, while ensuring the protection of wolves that are not causing
problems, similar to existing state law for depredating black bears and
mountain lions.
The livestock owner or agent has to decide whether the wolf is actively
“molesting” or attacking livestock or domestic animals. [emphasis mine]
Molesting means “the actions of a wolf that are annoying, disturbing or
persecuting, especially with hostile intent or injurious effect, or chasing,
driving, flushing, worrying, following after or on the trail of, or stalking
or lying in wait for, livestock or domestic animals.”
The law allows anyone to protect their animals using any nonlethal method
they deem necessary.
But it doesn’t allow a livestock owner, employee or agent to kill a wolf if
it is merely in the vicinity of their animals but not molesting or attacking
them.
It is also illegal for anyone to pursue and kill a wolf away from the site
when the wolf no longer is molesting or attacking the livestock or domestic
animals. The law requires livestock owners to get a permit from Fish and
Game to kill wolves not actively molesting or attacking animals.
Both wolves were killed outside a hunting season, and the furs remain the
property of the state and will be sold at the annual Fish and Game fur sale
Was this done so an elite few could view wolves outside of a zoo without traveling to Canada or Alaska or Minnesota? Isn’t this a classic case of cruelty to animals for man’s entertainment?
I’ve asked this question of wolf transplant advocates time and again with no rational response. Seriously, will somebody please explain this to me? I feel like a lone wolf.
Follow the money.
As Rene' Askins , Mr. Fischer's long time (since the early 1980's) colleague said to Dr Robert Taylor, PhD and Dr. L. Dave Mech, PhD. at a University of Wyoming Biology banquet in the early 1990's;..."you don't get it Doctor it isn't about wolves , it's about getting 30,000 ranchers off public lands".
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2006/articles02/mike_phillips_wolf_reintroductio.htm
Mike Phillips called Rene' Askins "my hero" at a speech to a function sponsored by "The Predator Conservation Alliance" in Mammoth, Wyoming
The Tribe's effort to restore wolf populations within Idaho is not a classic case of cruelty to animals for their own entertainment, however it is a mere reflection of their own cultural survival and population numbers that are rapidly approaching each other.
In todays Cody paper, there is a letter to the editor from a person in Germany stating he will not come to Yellowstone if Wyoming & the other states continue to kill wolves. He doesn't mention any concern over the loss of private property, the cost of which is coming out of individual families pockets.
Fanning's post above sets out both the ambiguity of Idaho's restrictions on wolf killing and a prosecutor's unwillingness to pursue a case in which at least one wolf was killed in clear violation of Idaho regulation.
This scenario will be repeated again and again.
wwwkeystoneconservation.org
Plenty of folks have wolves "in their back yards" and still get along with them. Ranching doesn't have to mean slaughtering predators, or prairie dogs either for that matter, or bison. Wolf reintroduction has been generally popular in the USA and the western states are part of the USA, like it or not. I don't know of any ranchers who have gone belly up due to wolf predation. Most ranchers rely heavily on federal public land, and US citizens have every right to influence public land policy whether it's in their state or not. Growing numbers of landowners are finding they can get along with wolves on their own lands, especially with help and advice from gov't and private groups. Idaho elk harvests and elk counts have remained essentially level since wolves were introduced, and last year elk takes were actually up. Much of the resentment against wolf re-introduction is based on resentment of "outside" interference, and the wolf is the scapegoat for the nasty feds and all the nasty enviros, like me.
Each “look see” probably costs us taxpayers $10,000. Can we afford this show?
When Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announced a wolf initiative in 1994, it is said by many, including a U.S. District Judge, that Babbitt misinterpreted the law, exceeded the authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ignored the concerns of the Indigenous whose homes were on the very land he wanted to plant wolves.
Why did he do this? Study the history of ESA, and you’ll clearly see how it has been mis-skewed by an elite few, to gain control over the usage of our land and water. After all, he who gets control over land and water gets the gold! It’s all about money.
All takeovers of land, water, company or private property, follow the same formula.
Depending on the structure of the organization, this formula works by: Finding something “to save;” Waiving public debate; Ignoring shareholders or members; Pretend they found this thing “to save” on your land; “Disturb” you to such extent you (Now spent financially, physically and mentally.) throw up your hands and cry out, “I can’t handle this anymore. I give up!”
Yesterday, the take-over artists enlisted the federal government’s help. Today, they receive welfare from.. and dictate marching orders to...our federal government.
In the case of Endangered Species, the once well used Spotted Owl has been re-placed by the wolf, polar bear, the overpopulated and very common meadow mouse, and a myriad of critters.
Since 1994, untold numbers of ewes, lambs, calves and other livestock and pets, have been lost due to wolf killings.
I doubt whether Bruce Babbitt or any wolf follower drone has suffered a wolf kill. With that as a given, their lack of comprehension as to the financial and mental toll these kills have on those who have incurred such losses, should be absolutely disallowed from any decision making process.
Meanwhile, Babbitt now enjoys money and status as head of the World Wildlife Foundation. Together with Al Gore, his new something “to save”is the entire earth from sea to shining sea and everything above and below. After all, he who gets control over land and water gets the gold!
It’s not about a “seeing experience”for the many. It is instead, all about money...for a few.
I don't think wolves were introduced so people could have a "seeing experience." I think wolves were introduced to restore an ecological system that had become overdependent on human interference and because people felt that wolves ought to live in at least a significant part of their former range. Plenty of folks are pleased to just know wolves are back in the West, without ever actually seeing them. That same attitude was what led to the creation of the wilderness areas and many of the national parks.
Google fladry, they put it up, then they take it down, why becaue it doesn't work. If you have a fail proof method of non lethal control, we'd sure like to not only hear it but also hear the tesitmonies of those who have used it.
If the wolves were necessary to fill an "ecological niche", it would have been necessary to introduce them where they first were eliminated, you know on the east coast.
I'm sure they are pleased to know about them.....being here, and us paying their way, rather than those that want them.
Where is the evidence to support your claim?--and I'm not talking about rural legends or self serving reminiscences...
Seriously. The "seeing experience," for a few, comes at far too extreme cost for those who don't have ways or means to travel to wolf dens (Which is discriminating against those economically or physically handicapped.) and those of us who "pay" for the mire (Yes. I do mean mire...as in “sticky!”) handful's experience.
Better ways to spend money, would be in cleaning up barrel pits and road sides everywhere. That way, millions could enjoy a lovely view in real time.
Or adopt at least 1/10 - or 1,000 of the feral/unwanted horses that now overload resources of those “trying” to care for them. You see, the nearsighted horse slaughter ban is leaving a bigger problem - albeit a very cruel problem - of horses dying slow, agonizing deaths through starvation, or quick ugly deaths by vehicular accident.
Why aren’t those who wanted the ban caring for these horses?
"Without human interference?" is a naive observation. There's not one incident on this earth, that hasn't been interfered by humans. That way of going will stay, as long as humans habitat this earth, or until animal rights purists eliminate all humans...including themselves. Which ever comes first.
In summation, all that I ask, is that "Those who want should pay the fare!”
I don't pay for things my children "want," and resent having a government "force" me to pay for the “wants” of strangers.
Simple as that!
You're right! The whinny drone wolf wanters leave piles of b.s. everywhere. But, they're not so tough. If they were, they'd take a pack or two home.
Never once have I ever asked anyone to babysit for my children or animals, without compensation.
Instead of paying the board and room for their wolves, the whinny wolf wanters drone on and on and on (like they belong to a cult, or have been drugged) trying to get taxpayers to pay for their pets. Their frivolous wants have come at an unacceptable cost to our society.
OK. Let's clear the slate. Don't you agree that "who so ever wants - whatever - should pay?"
And don't your agree folks should be held accountable for their actions?
In the paper world of wolf regulations and recovery objectives the "safe zone" for maintaining wolf populations in Wyoming supposedly allows this animal an area of sanctuary. In reality this zone is not all that safe.
Most every hunting outfitter hates wolves because, for one, wolves move elk around. Thus every guide who glasses a herd of elk the night before is PO’d the next morning when he sees no elk (and no $300 tip from his hunter) but lots of wolf tracks. The outfitter he works for is doubly PO’d because he hears shots coming from close to private hunter’s camps... or worse yet, from a neighboring outfitter he has been feuding with. Those were his elk, “damn it”.
On federal lands, where outfitters have, by defacto, taken “ranches” the wolf represents a threat no different than what cattle ranchers feel when wolves come onto their property.
These outfitters will go to any lengths to kill every elk out on their “land”. For one, they have the blessing from the state of Wyoming. The management plan gives them the green light to shoot any wolf harassing their horses. Since there is no law and order or witnesses back in these areas any wolf outside Yellowstone is fair game.
But we still have the core sanctuary of Yellowstone, don’t we? Not so. There are few packs of wolves in Yellowstone that don't have some part of their circuits outside of the Park. Plus all these fall hunting outfitters take dudes into Yellowstone for sight seeing and fishing trips in the summer. Any den discovered…and it is not that hard to find, just look for the pup tracks on the sand bars and do a few circuits in the area … is hoof pounded out by the outfitter and his whole entourage. Then after the dudes, unaware of what they are contributing to, go back to camp this same outfitter makes sure the wrangler runs all the stock over this spot and every guide slips away to do the same thing everyday the dudes are fishing anywhere near. Then when the outfitter leaves he tells the other outfitters and the same thing is repeated the next week. Get the idea? Destroy the core den by harassment and wolves either move on immediately or they won’t come back next year.
In my neck of the woods, the Se corner of Yellowstone, there was a wolf den less than a mile from my cabin and a half mile from the Bridger Teton Wilderness boundary. As soon as I saw and figured out what these guys were doing I rode to every camp, sorted the outfitter and help from the dudes, and in very explicit terms told them if this behavior continued there would be hell to pay. I may have been able to save this den with its 4 pups, but with Yellowstone wanting all its back country rangers to make only short trips into its backcountry, how much of this illegal behavior by outfitters will be noticed or curtailed? As for the “trophy hunting” area, where the Forest Service has volunteers or cowboy wantabe’s on its backcountry staff, who there is going to insure critical denning areas are saved? No, I don’t think the wolves are safe in their sanctuary!! And when wolf numbers go down in these areas and these harassed wolf packs are increasingly dispersing out of these “safe” areas to lands where open season prevails the biologists won’t know why. It will be blamed on disease, “new” carrying capacity information etc. Then the number of packs needed to be maintained, as stated in the recovery plan, will be downsized. It will be the easy way out for our govt. Finally, the “caring ones” will sympathetically put a hand on the shoulder of wolf advocates and say the idea of wolf recovery may have been for a good cause but today is not the days of the frontier when there was lots of open land for wolves.
I really hate to have to tell you this, but:
In 1989, a litter of 3-4 pups were born in the Ninemile valley. In September, Ed Bangs (USFWS) trapped and radio-collared the female, her mate and 3 pups. It became the first (of many) government supervised wolf pack extinctions in the name of "recovery." It was in the Missoulian and other newspapers at the time. Clinton wasn't in office, this occurred long before the grandstanding in Yellowstone.
"Never once have I ever asked anyone to babysit for my children or animals, without compensation.
Instead of paying the board and room for their wolves, the whinny wolf wanters drone on and on and on (like they belong to a cult, or have been drugged) trying to get taxpayers to pay for their pets. Their frivolous wants have come at an unacceptable cost to our society."
Whining:
"The "seeing experience," for a few, comes at far too extreme cost for those who don't have ways or means to travel to wolf dens (Which is discriminating against those economically or physically handicapped.) and those of us who "pay" for the mire (Yes. I do mean mire...as in “sticky!”) handful's experience."
Whining:
"Meanwhile, Babbitt now enjoys money and status as head of the World Wildlife Foundation. Together with Al Gore, his new something “to save”is the entire earth from sea to shining sea and everything above and below. After all, he who gets control over land and water gets the gold!
It’s not about a “seeing experience”for the many. It is instead, all about money...for a few."
This one is especially good because it invokes the name of Al Gore.
You engage in a similar tactic to the one you claim to despise; allow me to use your own words: "Finding something 'to [hate];' Waiving public debate; Ignoring shareholders or members; Pretend they found this thing 'to [hate]' on your land; 'Disturb' you to such extent you (Now spent financially, physically and mentally.) throw up your hands and cry out, 'I can’t handle this anymore. I give up!'” (change save to hate and it's the same thing).
I won't engage in ye/no questions, they tend to force a decision instead of opening up the discourse.
do you think Rick Bass' book is a fairy tale? There WAS a pack of wolves in the NineMile; do your own homework if you want documentation of it. To get you started, here is a link to information about the Ninemile Pack on Ralph Maughan's website:
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wrf1.htm
Fladry works well with sheep. It's an ancient method to protect sheep night or day in a fold. It's a temporary rope barrier with streamers attached at close intervals. Wolves won't cross it as long as it's intact. When used on public grazing allotments, regulations require that it be moved every day or so to protect the grass from overgrazing and trampling. It's intended to be put up and taken down every day.
Newer versions of fladry include electric fences and turbo-fladry. These are also temporary expedients to protect livestock during calving or when corralled at night. They all work. As I mentioned before, you can contact the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group for first-hand comments, or, if you don't trust "co-opted" ranchers to tell the truth, you can contact Rick Williamson, USDA Idaho Wildlife Services. He can also advise you on the usefulness of range riders to protect cattle, or you can contact Robin Bauer at the Bauer Ranch in Phillipsburg, Mont. Range riding has dramatically reduced wolf predation on the Bauer Ranch. Don't ask me to provide documentation which you would certainly choose not to believe. Go the people directly involved and personally speak to them if you actually want to know about non-lethal means of managing wolves. If, more likely, you just want to beat down any attempt to control wolves except by slaughtering them, just listen to the voices in your head.
There's no denying that these methods involve money and labour. However, funds are readily available from gov't and NGO sources, one of the more prominent being the Bailey Wildlife Foundation. People who support wolves in the western environment have actually put their money where their mouths are and contributed significantly to fund compensation payments and subsidies to non-lethal methods, and many are Westerners.
this article is from Ralph's page
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejects Wyoming's plan for predator/trophy game animal status for delisted wolves.
2002 Sept. 18 Jureano Mountain wolf pack breeches the fladry, but the fladry is seen as a partial success. Sept. 20 "Control" of pack resumes.
Another quote from the Idaho Mtn Express:
Though wolves eventually crossed the fladry, researchers are calling the experiment a success and said fladry could become a widespread temporary measure ranchers could use during calving season, as an example.
As for range riders, those who can afford the extra 25,000 year for riders have done so, you do realize that means they have taken over a quarter of a million dollars out of their own pockets over the last 11+ years. I doubt that the most ardent supporter has spent anything approaching that.
You wrote about fladry:
"It's an ancient method to protect sheep night or day in a fold. It's a temporary rope barrier with streamers attached at close intervals. Wolves won't cross it as long as it's intact. When used on public grazing allotments, regulations require that it be moved every day or so to protect the grass from overgrazing and trampling. It's intended to be put up and taken down every day."
What's your source for this information?
I think maybe you're confusing fladry and night pens.
Putting sheep in some kind of a night pen is indeed an old old practice. Some modern night pens consist of electric fence, usually some kind of net-wire so the sheep can't easily escape.
I doubt that fladry by itself would make a decent night pen, even if it is the electrified fladry, because it's sewn onto a single strand of polywire. It won't hold sheep in; they would just scoot under the wire and wander away to graze. Lambs especially would do that. Sheep and cattle also tend to chew on the flags, just out of curiosity.
Night pens do need to be moved regularly, because the ground they enclose can get really beat out. But, as you seem to be pointing out, this old practice is pretty useful for MINIMIZING predation. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does help minimize it.
Fladry IS an ancient technique, but it was used to hunt wolves and other animals by funneling them toward hunters.
It's not entirely accurate to say that wolves "won't cross [fladry] as long as it's intact."
Marco Musiani and colleagues tested fladry extensively and reported their results in the journal Conservation Biology in 2003 (Vol. 17(6):1538-1547). Their results ARE a pretty strong endorsement of fladry, because they found that it worked for up to 60 days. Wolves in one trial finally crossed the barrier and killed cattle after 61 days.
As for putting fladry up and taking it down every day, I'll surmise from that statement that you have never built a fladry line of any length.
Enclosing just a 300 acre pasture requires close to two miles of fladry. Moving it daily would be a huge hassle and would be totally unnecessary, unless you're on a really short-duration high-intensity grazing schedule and the stock will be moving to a different paddock every day.
Marion, you make some good points as always, but having riders out there isn't totally a cost to stockmen. Good riders do a lot more than deter wolves -- they doctor, check water and fence, and keep cattle were they're supposed to be. They even deter rustlers and vandals. Gains in production and rangeland health have to be factored into the equation there.
Thanks for the clarification. You're right. Fladry was used to hunt wolves. It was never intended to keep sheep in. My source is notes I took at the National Wolf Conference this month, where fladry was often discussed by some of the attending ranchers and wildlife management people. I actually wasn't thinking about enclosing large pastures, only temporary sheep pens or calving areas where wolf predation is likely.
My point here is that all these different methods of non-lethal control are an effective option to killing wolves. Resources are available to defray the costs to ranchers, and as you mention, there are often benefits unconnected to wolf management. Killing wolves should be a last resort.
My only quibble with what you've written today is that there AREN'T enough resources yet to get non-lethal stuff into widespread use. We need more specialists on the ground, more equipment, and more labor.
BUT, let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this is just a matter of applying the right technologies (fladry, guard dogs, rubber bullets &c;) in the right situations. I feel like the challenges today are still about 5% technical and 95% socio-cultural.
I wasn't in Bill's driftboat with Hank Fischer, so I don't know how much he really said, but I wish I could be so sanguine as he is that "Ranchers have accepted that wolves are here to stay, and they are now trying to figure out how to make it work."
They may accept that Yellowstone Park will continue to pump out dispersing wolves, and that they will periodically have livestock attacked, which will then lead to Wildlife Services coming in to kill wolves.
That's different from accepting wolves as multi-generational residents of ranching country like the Deer Lodge Valley or Beaverhead County. To date, we have very few examples of packs living in such places for more than a few years.
Is that success? Is that what people wanted? I don't know the answer to that. I suppose that if NWF and others are moving ahead with allotment buy-outs, maybe we should wait and see before passing judgment.
The truth is wolves are compatible with wilderness period. They do not know what is acceptable to kill only what they can kill with the least amount of danger to themselves. That of course gets them killed.
Ranchers have accepted that they are here, they have not and will not accept that city dudes are going to keep every possible wolf alive irregardless of the damage it does. If it is forced to the point that they can no longer survive ranching, then they have to sell, and of course developers are the ones with money.
Some where wolf proponents have to accept a tiny dose of reality.