Wolf Warring
Wolves Will Be Shot, Legally or Not, Idaho Official Says
An Idaho game commissioner says hunters are so upset about growing wolf populations, they'll take matters into their own hands and hunt the animals this fall -- and break the law if they have to.By Amy Linn, 8-06-09
 |
|
 | |
| Flickr photo by K. Branstetter. | |
|
An Idaho Fish and Game commissioner told a gathering of Western attorneys general that hunters are so angry about Idaho’s wolf population, they will hunt the animals in the state’s backcountry this fall—whether the law allows it or not.
“It will either be a state-authorized one or it will be an illegal one,” Commissioner Randy Budge said about the upcoming hunt, according to Idaho Mountain Express staff writer Jason Kauffman.
Kauffman’s fine story (see it in full here) says Budge was speaking at the conference about the challenges of managing wolves in Idaho. According to the story, “hunters are so upset by Idaho’s growing wolf population they might take matters into their own hands if conservationists successfully derail the federal government’s latest delisting of wolves in the northern Rockies.”
Budge made the statement at the annual Conference of Western Attorneys General, held in Sun Valley Aug. 2-5.
Fueling the hunters’ frustration, not surprisingly, is the June lawsuit filed by 13 conservation groups against the federal government, seeking to reverse the decision that removed Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains, effective this spring.
The Idaho Fish and Game Commission is slated to discuss upcoming wolf hunts and harvest quotas at its August 17 meeting. For more information on the meeting, including proposed tag fees, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Why don't you pull on your fishnet stockings and 6" pumps, do a little heel spin, and then head back to the Big City where you belong?
Your boyfriends miss you.
Well funded wolf advocate groups from Washington DC telling half truths to their memberships, coffers flush with donated cash from members, many of whom do not live in the West, have continued to obfiscate the obvious recovery and rapidly growing wolf population with esoteric scientific and technical legal arguments. They have had success in obtaining temporary stays from federal courts, which have delayed delisting.
Wolf populations are many fold over target levels promised to the states before management could occur.
There is little wonder why Commissioner Budge would make such a statement.
As far as that ugly comment about we who love the animals enough to stand up for them, I know quite a few hunters in this area, and some of those men also have boyfriends, so this isn't about sexual preference, keep it to yourself. If you can't find anything worthwhile to say on the actual subject, go bore your friends.
And to Zer, the increased presence of humans in every state where wolves have been reintroduced (by natural migration as in MT, or with human help in ID, WY, WI, MI, MINN and the Southwest), there will be wolf-human conflicts as the human population grows and wolves expand into new territories as their populations grow.
The federal government is already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) each year to deal with problem wolves. Just last month a wolf in Yellowstone was killed for chasing bicyclists, and other habituated wolves are being warned off with firecrackers, and soon to be rubber bullets or lethal control, if that doesn't work near Mammoth Hotsprings; in March wolves killed a cougar near a subdivision in McCall, ID; no need to restate the many episodes of wolves killing horses, mules, llamas, dogs, cats, along with the regular killing of cattle and sheep (its all in the annual reports of the USFWS - and those are just the verifiable kills).
Wolves sometimes kill surplus to their needs, for example two wolves killed 23 lambs in two nights in Eastern Oregon, which caused the OR legislature to hold emergency hearings on what to do about wolves now migrating there (in May I believe). WA now has two verified packs, and a couple suspected more.
A wolf will eat 8 - 23 elk per year between November and the end of April (more in biomass equivalent of deer). Not all of these animals are the weak, old or injured. Wolves kill elk calves, mature bulls after the rut, as well as healthy cows and recently born calves. A study by Dr. Creel at Montana State University released just last month, showed that wolves keep elk from nutritious forage habitat, thereby causing even more winter deaths, and up to 27% weight loss as compared to areas where wolves are not present. This causes lower calf - cow ratios, affecting herd population dynamics.
"Leaving nature alone" is simply not an option as the New West continues to grow, and you folks from the East keep retiring here or putting up your mega-mansions and golf courses in critical elk winter range.
not everyone from the east build mansions or golf courses. I've noticed plenty of mansions built in elk winter ranger by good ole fashioned "westerners" from CO, ID, NV etc. That seems to be a cheap shot from an angry, prejudiced perspective. Last I checked I saw many native MT people with the golf MT license plate, huge mansions and condoning illegal orv use etc. Many "locals" seem to be the greatest threat to public lands.
It's a fact that road density and human hunting trends have a greater impact on elk distribution and population numbers than wolves ever have or will. The elk are pushed back furthur from into the woods with wolves around. They are more wild and most hunters are not able to blast away from roads anymore. A legal wolf season is one thing however a wildlife official condoning illegal poaching sets a dangerous precident. The first comments on this blog demonstarte the nasty, ignorant, trigger happy "folks" that will be walking around the woods this fall "taking matters into their own hands" Is this the way to handle wolf managment?
The wolves have always been in ID and MT before re-intorduction.
Are we that desperate for wolf manangmenet that we are going to allow illegal poaching in the name of management.
As far as w muse's refrence to the research paper that does'nt sound like a good reason to allow illegal poaching and more like scary factoids. Elk and wolves have co-existed for thousands of years. Wolves do make the elk's lives harder however they also push the herds out of many areas and keep them on the move so they dont become complacent and overgraze their favorite areas. If you really care about elk herds then support the roadless rule and NREPA. If you go around blaming wolves for your unsucessful elk hunt and then keep voting againt roadless, wilderness, NREPA etc. then your creating the problem by destryonig habitat and using the wolves as a scapegoat for your own failed public lands policies.
Had Wyoming followed to the letter the requirements for delisting that were established in 1994 before wolves were reintroduced, wolves would now be delisted and states would have management.
People who are whining about conservationists' lawsuits and "esoteric" science used to counter indisputably illegal wolf delisting have no one to blame but themselves.
And quite frankly, if you take time to study the science, it isn't all that esoteric. It isn't quantum physics.
RH
I am in complete agreement with you regarding the impact of locals who do the same as I allege of Easterners. One cannot say everything in short blog comment. Impacts of humans all add up, and as the population grows the impacts will continue to increase unless some restraints occur. Local and state government planning agencies are slow to identify critical winter habitat and keep them from being developed. ORV damage and access speaks for itself.
I have read several articles regarding the ID Game Commissioner's statement. I do not believe he is either condoning or advocating illegal taking of wolves. He is just stating what will likely occur as the wolf advocates continue to challenge delisting in federal court. Recall his comments were made to the chief enforcement officials - attorneys general of each state present.
Furthermore, my sense, based on the fact that ID and MT and possibly WY (whose wolves are not being delisted because of their stupid predator-kill wolves on sight outside the GYA) have gone ahead with tasks associated with setting legal seasons for wolf harvests as promised over the last 20+ years by the federal government.
Also, the past challenges in federal court (in MT and Wash DC) have only required the USFWS to go back and do better homework before delisting and handing over management to the states. Delay, delay, delay has been the mantra of wolf advocates. The upshot of this has been frustration in each of the affected states, and will likely result in even larger harvests when management occurs, and that is unfortunate.
Wy's incredibly stupid dual status argument has, I am told, really created bad feelings in ID and MT, and even WY's own administrative agencies, because it put the whole delisting at risk, as you correctly point out. The dual status is a creature of state law which only the legislature, controlled by redneck cowboy livestock owners, can fix. There is also an overarching states rights - federal cooperation relationship that is very strained. This is because WY believes the feds lied to them about the target wolf populations which have been met and exceeded for years, and still no state management. They claim the feds did not honor their agreement. which manifests itself in at least two ways. First, USFWS did some sloppy work on the leadup to delisting - first not approving the WY plan, then approving it without any major changes and no explanation. Then federal Judge Malloy spanked USFWS for it.
Who misinterpreted the genetic argument? It's based upon well-understood problems of genetic drift on the one hand, and the clear determination of the states of Wyoming and Idaho to restrict or prevent genetic interchange among sub-populations, thus accentuating genetic problems over time. What's esoteric about that?
Let's get something straight. The requirements for delisting were laid out in Appendix 11 of the Final Wolf EIS in 1994, and practically everyone knew them. No one had to lie about it, but some did. One of those requirements was for Wyoming to legally reclassify wolves as something other than "predatory animals" that could be shot on sight, without regulation. When the numerical target levels were achieved, the biologists at Wyoming G&F;put together a plan that would manage wolves as trophy game throughout the state and otherwise meet the delisting criteria from 1994. This got slapped down by the Stockgrowers and its henchmen on the G&F;Commission, and we got dual status instead. A couple of political hacks came up from the Denver FWS office and told the Wyoming legislature that dual status would be legal. This being the Bush administration, it wasn't considered appropriate to tell the State its plan was illegal. However, the biologists knew it was illegal, but were told to shut up. (Remember Dave Moody's suspension when he told folks at the Chico Wolf Conference in 2003 that Wyoming's wolf plan wouldn't work). Eventually, Gail Norton had to repair that mistake, and the FWS then told Wyoming to change its plan, which was the appropriate thing to do. It continued to do so until Dirk Kempthorne took over at Interior, and he then deliberately muddled things by ordering the FWS to approve Wyoming's plan, with some minor changes that were still illegal.
To put it bluntly, everyone but the idiots in the Wyoming legislature know dual status is illegal, and they've known for years that it's illegal.
This whining about federal mistreatment of the innocent states is all deliberate politics to keep the wolf flames burning; who really cares about state management, which in any case would be a disaster given the political cowardice of the agencies? I woudn't trust G&F;to carry out my garbage these days, given how bad things are (heard of elk feedgrounds?).
So why should conservationists put up with this crap? The only option is to sue.
RH
He stopped short of such a statement. Budge is a lawyer and hunter. Budge serves as a Commissioner on the State Wildlife Commission - one of several appointed citizen positions. I suspect, on experience alone, he knows where to draw the line. But since he is not a paid employee of the State of Idaho, and he does not speak for the Commission as a policy body, it still would not be an official act, just an opinon. He just stated what he thought was likely to happen to fill the vaccum of another year without a contemplated wolf season to reduce their numbers.
Additionally, equating a need to control predators/game animals, as defined under state law and which are destroying other property of the state like elk/deer/moose; or destroying private property of citizens - cattle/sheep/dogs; or defining a need to manage wildlife species through harvest quotas, is clearly not the same as an act of vigilantism in the manner you suggest.
because i think i see where Michael and probably many others possibly erred in reading these two articles by Linn and Kaufmann.
does Budge follows up in his speech with saying this season will be a law enforcement challenge for officials; i hope so.
Linn's article can lead you to believe that Budge is saying there will be a hunt legal or illegal whatever. "Wolves Will Be Shot, Legally or Not, Idaho Official Says" is the title. Is Linn just fanning the flames?
I don't have time to contact Budge. any chance you news people could get us a copy?
Let's keep it legal people. we will get a legal wolf hunt eventually. but if we start throwing out the law we throw out a lot.
Had Wyo. gone along with that whitewash, rightwingcrazies would have blown away half of all the wolves in the area by
now.
Things have not gone well for picket-pins, however; because psychopaths just have to be killing something..!
Appendix 11 deals with a requirement that at least one hot date per generation is the threshold for genetic interchange. However, in appendix 9, the talk is "addition of a few extra pairs would add security to the population and should be considered in post EIS" planning "as a periodic infusion."
The lust for a "migration corridor" template being overlaid on land use for "natural" migration and Hatfield-McCoy on the part of the usual litigant extremists has completely overshadowed the common sense, least-cost, and scientifically-valid approach of selecting breedable females for translocation. Bears are shuffled around all the time and it works. But wolves can't? That's a fundamental logical disconnect, which typifies the control-at-all-costs-especially-if-others-bear-the-burden psychosis of the anti-delisting faction.
The argument might make perfect "sense" in a courtroom, but there's a big world outside those walls. The Greens are about to discover that the hard way.
Better yet, maybe you should schedule a session with your therapist to see what is behind your continued use of the words - "psycopath, nazi, white supremacy, rightwingcrazies" and the like. I have seen your distorted and disturbing posts here, before on other articles. They add nothing.
Perhaps the time is ripe for those on the wolf advocacy side of the equation to pick up a rifle and poach cattle on public lands.
As with wolves there is no season set aside for either species, and there is a compelling argument about the effect of livestock grazing on those public lands.
I am a wolf advocate. I do believe that at some point there should be a wolf hunting season. However, I do not own a gun and have only gone hunting once when I was very young. Although I don't think I would poach cattle, I am begining to believe that might be the only way to get the anti-wolf communities attention .
Livestock are not an endangered species, they eventually go to a slaughterhouse to be served on someone's plate eventually. Wolves on the other hand are an endangered species, particulary Mexican Wolves and Red Wolves. Wolves create a trophic cascade that improves the regional environment - livestock does just the opposite.
I have worked on wolf recovery issues for the last nine years. Although I don't mind hunters and I do not advocate my premise here. But maybe an eye for an eye, or the threat of thereof might be the only solution. Wonder what the difference would be for senticing and fines for cow poachers compared with wolf poachers.
And, let's just keep the lies coming -- I'm in the same area where some feel perfectly fine lying about having seen big bad wolves. Get a clue: when your cause makes you think it's OK to tell lies (more than a few have been told in the comments here), that's a clear sign you are on the wrong side of an issue.
The court took the foolish position that somehow allowing wolves to disperse across eastern and southern Wyoming would be significant in terms of genetic interchange. Perhaps, if receptor populations did in fact exist. But the reality is, a Wyoming wolf would have a long way to go to find a Minnesota wolf. And there are no established, inbred populations in Colorado. So dispersal is really a canard.
But the political point of this exercise is the "green mold" allegory I think was posted above about humans. The end result is to have wolves fill all possible niches and dominate the wildlife "cascades" regardless of human desires or resulting conflicts -- again, needs and conflict not directly imposed upon advocates.
Let's furthermore not forget that a considerable number of these charismatic megafauna predators were deemed pest species by communities with direct experience of the impacts of predator presence. Of course, in these modern, enlightened times, that matters not at all.
The ESA has turned out to be a profoundly powerful political bludgeon, an amazingly undemocratic and totalitarian instrument that goes against the very grain of what makes a society free. Whether that was intended when Congress's geniuses passed, and Nixon almost forgot to sign, the ESA, is a worthy discussion...especially when the effect is clear.
I expect I know as much, and maybe even more, about civil disobedience than you - both its historic legal roots, as well as place in US history. And, I won't take offense to being called a moron by someone who does not know what one is.
Read my posts. I have not advocated illegal killing of wolves, and I never would. I have merely tried to state the reasons why Commisioner Budge predicts such illegal taking may occur.
Wolves, elk and other wildlife are considered property of the state or federal government. The legal term is a "chattel." The state's property (elk, deer and moose) or private property (sheep, cattle, etc.) are at risk because the federal government allegedly will not manage, or allow the state to manage, what at this time is federal property (wolves), outside federal reservations like the national parks, which have special protections.
Let's make one thing very clear Wolves are not people. Let me say that again; wolves are not people.
"Civil" means - of or relating to the citizenry, ie. people. Disobedience is an act of not obeying the law of the state or federal government. The state of ID says it is ready to manage this federal property. The federal government agency, the USFWS in the admistrative branch, says the state is ready to manage, as well. However, based on the suits that have been filed regarding delisting, the federal court system is still in the process of making up its mind.
If someone kills a wolf illegally, it is an act of "civil disobedience." Civil disobedience is typically defined as non-violent, but, again, that has to do with no violence against people.
Now, the purist would say, such an act of "civil disobedience" should be done openly, and the bad actor should accept the legal consequence - a federal or state prosecution for illegally taking property. Unfortunately that will not be the case. These acts of disobedience against the state or federal government will likely be covert, and therein lies the enforcement problem that has always plagued wildlife management.
You're welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Your discussion of wildlife as property is incorrect. At law, wildlife are considered "wild by nature," owned by no one. The statements of ownership that you find in various state and federal statutes, that wildlife are the "property" of the state, are inartful statements of what is acknowledged in American jurisprudence as a legal fiction, an awkward way to state the public trust duties of the state for wildlife in a way the public can understand, since the vast majority of people cannot comprehend something that isn't owned--that is free, wild by nature (ferae naturae). The state does not assert, and cannot claim, actual TITLE to wildlife, even when the Property Clause of the US Constitution is used to assert authority to manage wildlife, as in the Endangered Species Act.
Granted, this is a subtle point, and the cause of much confusion, as we hear when ranchers bellow, "why aren't you Game & Fish people controlling your property and keeping it off mine?" Well, elk, deer, moose, pronghorn aren't G&F;"property," and the only reason G&F;is legally obligated to act on rancher complaints is because ranchers wrote the laws that force G&F;to take operational and financial responsibility for game "damage" to private property. In other words, ranchers voted themselves a nice, privileged subsidy to which they have no fundamental right.
In other words, there is no legitimate parallel in wildlife to domestic livestock as private property. The assertion that wolves as "federal (private) property" are somehow stealing the (private) property of state--big game--by predation is simply wrong, aside from being ecologically absurd. Would you make that claim were wolves under state management?
It is also wrong to assert that wolves are negatively impacting ungulate populations in the Greater Yellowstone or Idaho. But that's a separate issue.
You might want to read a short essay I wrote on the topic, located here: http://wolves.wordpress.com/?s=the+curious+legal+history+of+the+original+outlaws.
RH
You posit an argument that various state and federal statutes are legal fiction when these political entities, via their carefully worded mandates, claim to own wildlife. You even used the words "at law" to support your claim, when the laws as written suggest the opposite. Peculiar logic.
What to do, what to do?
Early on in the comment section, Mickey Garcia humorously suggested that some vigilantism was about to break out when he parodied such characters with his quote, "Okay boys! We're taking the law into our own hands!" After your argument, is there any real "law" on the subject at all?
Let's put your argument through a "real life test" and see how it holds up. I'm not a cattle rancher nor do I run a commercial sheep operation. My wife, myself, and our children have a place tucked into the woods with some farm animals such as chickens, sheep, goats and the like. The kids have all been in 4-H, and the two who remain at home are still active participants.
A couple January's back, on the 4th to be exact, our then 10-year old son went to feed the animals. Chickens and turkeys first, and then around the building to the section with the goats and the sheep. He loaded the hay fork to toss some grass over the 6' fence, and as he turned to do so, he noted that a mountain lion was staring at him on top of a dead milk goat, just inside the door of the barn. Ten feet away.
At the moment he didn't care who owned or didn't own the cat. He gently laid the fork to the ground and retreated slowly behind the building, and then ran like the wind to the house. He threw open the door screaming "Lion! There's a lion in the barn and it killed one of the goats!"
I hunt, but I've never been particularly interested in hunting lions. It's just not my thing. Nevertheless, this wasn't hunting, it was solving a problem 40 yards from my home and inside one of my buildings.
I grabbed a 12 gauge pump shotgun and the next oldest boy, then up to the barn we headed. Outside of the dead goat laying in the doorway, all seemed normal. The creek was crashing noisily as background, the chickens were pecking away, the sheep were a bit agitated, but in the main, things were "normal".
I assumed (mistake) that the cat had fled after seeing the small human, but luckily chambered a round right before entering the building. I was going from a visage of sunlit snow into a dark room, and in one step found myself six feet away from a very unhappy cougar who had killed and partially consumed two goats. I had interrupted his meal and the "EXIT" sign from the cafe was directly over my head. Bad scenario with growling.
Everything of note happened in one second, proving that I haven't slowed down all that much over the years, but man, did I need a drink. That was going to have to wait. I had a dead cat, two dead goats, and no license to hunt that species.
Call Idaho Fish and Game. What occurred was a "Legal, but non-licensed kill", and they were on the way up. Upon arrival, it was quite clear to the officer what had happened. No problem, and he was of course, going to take the lion with him.
Now a Fish and Game officer is by law "An agent or representative" of the state, its laws, and its people. I was curious as to why he was taking the lion and asked him as to why such was the case. The "lion belongs to the people", I was told, and even though the peoples cat had killed my two milk goats, he was charged by law to take it. Too bad for the goats of course, but I didn't even get to keep the cat that killed them.
The people owned the lion. The agency of the people, Idaho Fish and Game, auctions the pelts of these deceased critters off every year, bringing revenue into the coffers of the people.
This is not a "subtle point", as you somehow attempt to assert the opposite of this real life reality is. It is factual, both in law and in practice. I watched the entirety of the whole course of events unfold right before my eyes. There was nothing subtle about any of it. Lion kill goats owned by me. I kill the feline perpetrator inside my building where the crime was committed. Authorities are summoned and they remove the carcass of the perp, stating that they in fact own the dead perp. They legally auction off the perps hide and use the funds to help fund their agency.
I did not ask for renumeration for my losses, not was any offered. In fact, the State that owned the cat took the perp that I had killed and made money off him while I suffered financial loss from the death of my goats. I might add that we had owned those goats for nine years, and they were great milk producers. They were not just "goats", they were pets.
Note this - In real life, the State asserted and claimed title to the wildlife here in question. They sold the hide of said wildlife they claimed to own. You argued what I just described could not possibly happen because you argue the state cannot do what it did.
Are you going to argue that what I just described did not occur because the events of "real life" occur outside the parameters of your absurd legal theories? And now you expect the readership to assume your opinion is credible on whether or not wolves are negatively impacting ungulate populations?
But as you stated, "That's a separate issue". Pray tell...
Thanks for the subtle distinction between managing wildlife as property or in the public trust. The issue is not my "facts" but rather law.
Legal fiction or not, the duties owed by the respective states, or the federal government to the citizens regarding wildlife which is within their management responsibility, remain essentially the same. The nature of property distinction is not the point of the "civil disobedience" argument anyway. I should not have tried to oversimplify it. But, thanks for pointing out the public trust doctrine aspect, of which I am very much aware.
Nest issue - RE: Montana litigation genetic diversity argument.
I wanted to respond to your earlier post. I have it on very good authority from someone close to the litigation, that the results of the vonHoldt study on genetic diversity was used improperly by the plaintiffs. Bridgett von Holdt and her advisor felt they had been "used" by Defenders of Wildlife, the limitations of the study ignored, and the results of the modeling misconstrued, which left some very bad feelings. This is confirmed by a statement from Ed Bangs, as quoted in the Casper News Tribune in the following excerpt (assuming the CST got it right):
......The conservation organizations say the VonHoldt study proves that without genetic exchange between core recovery areas, wolves face "serious threats to survival."
Molloy noted the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges there is no proof of exchange between the three main subpopulations, nevertheless, "the Service now takes the position that documented proof of DNA exchange is not required to achieve a metapopulation. The rationale for rejecting the VonHoldt Study's predictions is not convincing nor well explained," the judge wrote.
But Ed Bangs, the federal gray wolf recovery coordinator, said there are fundamental flaws with these arguments, and the way the VonHoldt study is being used by the plaintiffs in this case.
Furthermore, if one were to look more closely at the VonHoldt study, one would see that its computer-modeled predictions of inbreeding are impossible, once well-established wolf behavior is entered into the equation.
The conservation organizations have asserted -- and the judge has at least temporarily sided with the claim -- that genetic exchange between the three subpopulations must be "natural" or else it doesn't count, Bangs said.
"We never promised the connectivity had to be natural," he said. "I don't know where this whole thing about 'natural' connectivity came from. Wolves were artificially reintroduced in the first place, and we artificially moved wolves around until 2001."...............
Casper Star Tribune July 25, 2008.
[http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/07/25/news/wyoming/02817151b32beb19872574910003bd5e.txt]
In any event, I think the judge made the right decision, and USFWS had the opportunity to bolster their positon in this last delisting narrative. Whether it will hold up in court, and when, is another issue to be considered in light of the absence of WY as a wolf manager. But, it seems USFWS could continue to fill that role for the state - enforcement of illegal taking of wolves in WY, in the "predator" will be an interesting matter to say the least
The wolf is an important "piece" of BALANCED environment here in the west.
thanks for summing up my feelings about this blog.
But just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have the right to dispose of it. If that were the case I promise you there would be a LOT fewer people in this world.
ESA status of wolves is about to change in the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes area. That is what the fuss is all about.
The wolves you claim to have seen in the 1970's are not the same temperment and size as most now in the Northern Rocky Mountains. These are Canada transplants, and much larger. At present, they have no fear of humans. In Yellowstone NP wolves are now being lethally controlled for chasing bicyclists. At Park headquarters in Mammoth Hotsprings, rangers are preparing to shoot them with rubber bullets and beanbag shotguns to keep them away from employee housing for fear of an attack on tourists (yes, it is true). These wolves are becoming habituated. The are just a canid - a large dog, that is smart and adaptable. They have very little reason to fear of man, or anything related to man like livestock or the family dog, and they are voracious eaters of elk.
As you know the Endangered Species Act is the the threshold issue, here. The US Department of Interior is the agency responsible for administering the ESA as it applies to wolves. They say wolves no longer need ESA protection in ID, MT, parts of UT, OR and WA, and the Great Lakes in WI, MN and MI. The Northern Rocky Mountain wolf rule was published in the federal register April 2, 2009 to become final May 4, 2009. Here is the website for the ADOPTED federal regulation that affects MT, ID and WY:
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/74FR15123.pdf
For those needing even more background check out the Western Gray Wolf website for the USFWS. It even has some the documents commentors have been talking about.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
Each of those states and bad orphan child Wyoming, say they are ready, willing and able to manage wolves. Management includes controlling numbers and range, in harmony with other wildlife species, just as they manage other predators such as cougar and black bear, as well as deer, elk, moose and upland game birds. Each state is empowered to do this under law, and that is why they are impatient.
By the way, I am not aware that any other states are clammoring to have their own large wolf populations, by offering to take excess from the states who claim they have too many. For example, UT, CO, the Dakotas, WA, OR, CA, or any state in the East or the South. Why do you suppose that is?
you make a lot of claims that you seem underqualified to make.
"Wolves have no fear of humans"
I've seen wolves in the wild and they are very skittish of humans perhaps even fearful. How many wolf encounters have you had in the wild? How many times have you tracked Wolves in the wild? How are the wolves in WA, UT & OR not endagnered if they're just acknowledging that yes the wolves are present in those states. ID, WY and MT have much larger wolf populations than the afore mentioned states. How can you claim they should all be managed similarilly when each state has a much different issue.
Many creatrures are habituated in yellowstone and wolves are no exception. Wolves in MT,ID and more remote parts of WY are certainly wild and afraid of humans. The wolves in the northern rockies are actually a hybrid of the canadian wolves and the american wolves struggling to surivive. Yes there were already wolves in MT, ID, WY and possibly other states before reintorduction.
The reason other states are not keen on taking "excess" wolves probally has something to do with the fear mongering you and your ilk have become so skilled at rather than the wolves actions.
I have never had to look for wolves or track them. I have been close enough to three of them together, I could have hit them with a rock. I was one at about 50 yards, and it did not seem concerned with my presence. Last fall I saw enough wolf crap to fill a five gallon bucket in six days of elk hunting. I saw three elk the entire time, and that was highly unusual for this area. In winter, look for elk in the deep snow and the wolves will be close by - bloody kill sites and all. Wolves are keeping elk from their winter feeding areas at lower elevations, shallower snow depths and better grazing. The result - wolves are starving them to death, causing weight loss and lower calf - cow ratios in some areas of Montana.
If you believe, and have proof, that the "The wolves in the northern rockies are actually a hybrid of the [imported] canadian wolves and the american wolves struggling to surivive" you just made the case for the USFWS that genetic connectivity has been accomplished. I expect the parties to those lawsuits in Montana would like to speak with you directly, and maybe even take your deposition. You better give Defenders of Wildlife and USFWS a call. I can provide phone numbers if you like.
Tell your reasoning to the state of Oregon, about why them might "not wanting to take excess wolves." In April two wolves that had migrated in from Idaho "surplus killed" (that means they attacked, killed or maimed but did not eat) 23 lambs just outside Baker, OR. The OR legislature convened emergency hearings to address the concern.
Wolves do not know about state or international boundaries, so the fact that they are observed when migrating to new habitat has nothing to do with them not being managed for protection. Every state you mentioned currently protects them by state law- WA, OR, UT etc. So do the states of WI, MN, MI, but there are very strong rumblings in WI to open a wolf season as soon as delisting occurs because of impacts on deer populations and dairy livestock on private land.
I did not say "they should be managed similarly" in each state. That was the point of the delisting process - each state had to develop their own management plans to fit their needs and issues.
You would do well to spend a few weeks reading the documents on the USFWS website that I posted earlier. It will answer some of the questions - certainly better than I can- on the issues you raise. Staart with the delisting rule and read the Idaho and Montana plans.
I can only hope that you aren't as wrong on everything else you've written in this thread as you are on your narrow and clearly incomplete understanding of the history of civil disobedience.
I'll leave it to others to make the decision for themselves, but your comments on that and other things in this thread have convinced me my hope would be misplaced. Perhaps there are areas where you truly are the expert you profess to be, but critical thinking skills have proven that this thread isn't such an area.
This is an interesting thread, and I've appreciated learning from the folks who have different perspectives and knowledge than do it, so thanks to those willing to share accurate info -- I appreciate it.
The wolves that were used for reintroduction were from Canada, but there is no such wolf called Canis lupus canadensis, or Canis lupus americanus. If it were possible to perform a genetic analysis of these wolves and the ones that inhabited the area 100 years ago there would not be very much difference, if any. Morever, the original classification of wolves (as well as other animals), was done on many factors (geography, pelage color, skull size, etc.) unrelated to actual genetic differences. Most wildlife biologist would tell the 20+ previously named subspecies should now be as few as 5 or 6. This is known as splitters vs. lumpers.
You go on to say that wolves are just a dog - a canid that is smart and adaptable. That is true. But then you go on to say that they have little to no fear of people, livestock or the family dog and they are voracious eaters of elk. I have never seen a domestic dog take down an elk - or livestock for that matter. I would think that most domestic dogs have a huge respect for all of the above and wolves, being a fellow canid are for the most part the same. I recognize that wolves take down livestock and have done the same to humans (mostly in Europe/Asia - possibly never here). I'm sure you are well aware of the statistics of the damage domestic dogs have done and that they have killed far more people than wolves.
You go further saying that there are no states clamoring for wolves. I beg to differ. A group with which I am affiliated with is trying to bring red wolves back to Kentucky at the Land Between the Lakes N.R.A. If you bother to look there are many groups trying to re-establish wolf populations in the Northeast.
Your appeal to the squeemish about bloody kill sites is ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that when you hunt that no blood is shed?? Most animals and people live by feeding on other animals or plant life. Perhaps you need to go to a livestock slaughterhouse to remember where most of this country's meat comes from. Even if you are a subsistance hunter you woud have to acknowledge that fact.
Regarding elk populations, there are many reasons why elk populations are down (in some areas) not the least of which is that they were artificially high before.
Surplus killing ocurs ocassionally. If this happens to livestock, perhaps the owner should protect his/her animals. One difference between livestock killing in Wisconsin and the western states is that in WI it occurs on private land. (Again maybe they should take better care of the livestock in WI). Public lands are mutiple use and one of the uses is wildlife watching. Another is that people know that that type of thing still exists in this country whether they go to see it or not. The problem here is that we have not been able to quantify these uses and therefore they are not even factored in. Maybe if ranchers bought insurance like most businesses do then a certain amount of loss might be not acceptable but perhaps tolerated. Conservationist are now footing that bill with their funds available for carnivore depredation. The fact that this fund exists is a tribute to the many people who pony up the money for wildlife they may never see. Similarly, it seems as if it is OK for Wildlife Services to spend a fortune on predator control to help what is basically a welfare industry.
You are correct again when you say that wolves do not recognize man-made lines on a map.This , I suppose, is admission by you that there is really no difference between Canadian wolves or American wolves. If they claim no nationality then I guess there is no nationality gene to express such a trait.
According to the ESA, an endangered species is not recovered until it is present in the greater part of it's former range. If this is the case, and it must be because the ESA is now the law, then wolf recovery has along way to go.
Before you suggest someone else should read USFWS documents, perhaps you would do well to look at documents on other web sites or read some some books on wolf ecology, biology and especially genetics.
I do not profess to be any kind of expert on anything. I offer facts and opinions, just like anyone else. If you believe I am not correct, on specific facts feel free to offer verifiable facts of your own, or a reasoned opinion. I have not knowingly lied about anything you see here, and I want to know if I am wrong. I think that is the spirit of the New West comment opportuny -exchanging thoughts and ideas, and making people think.
I had no desire to get into an intellectual debate about "civil disobedience," but you won't seem to let go of it. I have read Thoreau, to whom the concept is originally attributed, beginning in 1849. He changed his own view of the concept over time. His work has been analyzed, critiqued and re-analyzed by philosophers and academics for a century and a half, as our society has changed.
Thoreau, a Harvard trained philosopher acted, studied and wrote extensively about it. The Boston Tea Party was an act of civil disobedience. Ghandi, and Martin Luther King read Thoreau. Rosa Parks did not read Thoreau, but her act of keeping a seat on a segregated bus, was civil disobedience. The Dutch, during WWII interpreted the concept to be a call to action against the Germans, and in that case it constituted "violence to people." The Dutch underground blew up bridges.
"Civil disobedience" a definition:
Most people take "civil" in "civil disobedience" to mean "citizenly" rather than "courteous." The standard French translation is "Désobéir aux lois," "Disobeying the laws." That takes "civil" as referring to the object of disobedience; "civil" disobedience means disobeying the laws governing citizens. [as quoted in "The Theory, Practice and Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience," by Professor Lawrence Rosenwald, Wellsley College, in the reference essays cited below].
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html
Now, North Idaho Lady, if you have something to offer other than smarta$$ one liners, make a contribution. Tell others what you believe "civil disobedience" is, or is not, in the context of the story above.
Residents undrstood the wolves would be delisted at 300 wolves for 3 years, now we probably are in actual fact at 10 times that and we are told, "no that is not what we meant", "we meant 300 for 3years was where we would consider thinking about delisting at some point in the future". I think we can expect the same level of honesty in anything passed by congress.
First, I suggest you look at your definition above of "violence" as it is incorrect with respect to civil disobedience.
Second, you've read Thoreau: big whoop. So have my students -- it's assigned reading.
I challenge you to cite where Thoreau ever advocated inflicting violence as a form of civil disobedience upon other than the government or its representatives because while I've studied Thoreau extensively, I don't recall ever reading such a thing. Indeed, advocating civil disobedience against other than the civil authority -- wolves, in this case -- would be explicitly against the very notion, and if you understood Thoreau rather than merely "reading" his works, I think you'd Get that.
In short, your argument that illegally killing wolves would be a form of civil disobedience simply doesn't hold water except with a lunatic fringe.
Furthermore, while Thoreau offered an eloquent defense of John Brown's actions with respect to the Harpers Ferry (the government, its agents & property) raid, reputable contemporary theorists have identified the problem with such a stance and explicitly reject both violence AND an unwillingness to accept the consequences of civil disobedience.
***Reputable*** theorists -- not those in the lunatic fringe who would try to justify sneaky irresponsible illegal behavior without consequence as civil disobedience. <snort>
I agree completely with your first sentence. I did not mention anything about genetics - other than to say the Canadian wolves are bigger (a larger phenotype, as opposed to genotype) Just like, comparing different populations of humans - same species. An average size American would stick up at least 6 inches taller than an average Chinese person, or a native from South America. We are just bigger, and with size often comes strength - in this case the size of the wolf seems important to some because they need to be big to take down an elk. Wolves on Vancouver Island are much smaller, more like coyote. They feed on salmon and deer. I cannot say whether they are a different species.
I meant nothing about the "bloody kill sites" other than to respond to "beargrass's" question. That is a way game managers look to find and count wolves in winter by airplane. I have a friend who lives near Afton WY, and that is how he finds wolves when flying his plane.
Domestic dogs will, in a pack take or sometimes alone, take down an elk, cow or sheep. In fact, some ranchers claiming livestock loss from wolves, have been denied compensation because a pack of dogs allegedly did the deed, and wolves were wrongly accused. You show you don't know much about ranch life in the West.
Montana wolves, at least the ones the state is aware of, are Canadian wolves that have migrated, they are not Canadian transplants that have been taken from different parts for their genetic diversity, as in the case of central ID and MT. Read the wolf delisting stuff and get educated. An earlier poster suggested there were residual wolves still in MT in the 1970's, and if so they would have a slightly different genetic mix, which is important to the issue being litigated by the Defenders of Wildlife.
I said no other STATES (state governments which are the only ones who have standing here under the ESA as managers, other than tribes) were "clammoring" for introduction of wolves. Glad to know some group in Kentucky wants some, maybe ID will accomodate.
I refer you to the respective states on the issue of wolf impact on elk populations and dynamics. They seem to think, based on field studies, and research that the current wolf population is impacting elk numbers adversely.
The ESA point you raise is over what are called Distinct Population Segments (DPS). The Dept. of Interior FSWS says Rocky Mountain wolves and Great Lakes wolves (and the New Mexico wolves) may be regulated as different populations. You can read about that on the Great Lakes Wolves website and the NRM wolf delisting regs. Google it and you will find the website. The federal courts will have the final say, on how the ESA is interpreted as you suggest in your next to last paragraph. USFWS seems to disagree with you.
Your last paragraph, good point, and I do read about genetics, and in fact have a master of science degree in natural resources.
I am thrilled that you have studied Thoreau more than I, and wish you would have engaged on an intellectual level in your first post, instead of sniping at me. Great! We are glad to have you in the discussion.
Just to clarify: I made an observation in my initial post. It was one that I thought reflected a possible reaction by some of the affected citizenry, after a duly empowered agency of federal government, the Department of Interior, had adopted a rule to delist wolves from the ESA and allow ID and MT to manage them. This has been a very long struggle for the states and USFWS, with many false starts, leading to many sources of frustration for various stakeholders.
The title and substance of this article, in fact the very content of Commissioner Budge's statement to State attorneys general, is the basis of my observation. Budge's prediction met a generic definition of civil disobedience - citizens openly committing an illegal act of protest against federal and state law if the delisting is not approved by the federal courts.
Let us be clear, there is no violence to people in this scenario. That it does not fit squarely within the definition of Thoreau's writings and apparant philosophy is not the issue. He provided a foundation and organized structure around which the concept has evolved. I do not dispute that violence was not an original element of it.
I expect even Thoreau would agree - the real issue before us is a failure of government. He would be on your side of the issue, as respects its content, but would, I suspect, understand the view of the other side, as any good philosopher might.
You and I can disagree on the "violence" aspect of it. Again wolves are not people; they are predator game animals under protection of the ESA, subject to wildlife management policy of either the federal government or the state. We should not lose sight of that.
***I personally do not condone illegal killing of wolves; in fact I am strongly AGAINST IT.***
Whether taking wolves illegally represents fringe lunatics or just livestock owners and outfitters who have livelihoods at risk, and frustrated hunters remains to be seen.
And, thank you for reminding us of Thoreau's vigorous defense of abolitionist John Brown for the Raid at the armory at Harper's Ferry, which resulted in thirteen deaths, and the execution of Brown for his acts. Brown's cause to end slavery was just, his method not so.
By the way, you do not state whether your students are high school or college. Care to tell us more about yourself and your interest?
All I meant by a "hybrid" was that obviuosly the relocated wolves have bred with the native wolves in the U.S. rockies. As far as wolves having an adverse affect on elk populations; roads and human hunters have a greater impact on elk populations and distributions than wolves ever will. In certain areas wolves may have an adverse affect on certain elk herds however this is never a wide spread situation that justifies slaughter in the name of saving a state's elk herd. If you want healthy, large elk herds you should support protection for ALL remninig USFS roadless areas, WSA's and wilderness areas.
You lose credibility with your statement, and sound no different than the 'tree-huggers'.
Your last sentence "If you want healthy, large elk herds you should support protection for ALL remainnig USFS roadless areas, WSA's and wilderness areas." seems to suggest you know little of elk ecology and feeding habits. Larger elk populations are attributed, in part, to the effects of logging - harvesting trees and subsequent succession of plants and forbes in logged over areas. Abandoned logging roads, as they grow over also serve this purpose. Ugly, yes, but great for elk, fire suppression and tree disease control. Wildfires result in good elk habitat too, again ugly, but a natural process. Presence of wolves keeps elk from open areas, confines them to higher elevations, and keeps them in smaller groups. This is a mix of blessings. For winter it is a disaster, and starvation is an ugly death that I am surprised the Humane Society folks don't acknowledge regarding wolf reintroduction. I guess they have to selectively pick their battles.
If I understand the math correctly, an elk will eat as many as a dozen to two dozen elk a year (say average 18 which are not at risk elk). That includes calves, cows and bulls, not all of which are weak, old or injured. Assuming the hunter success rate is about 25%, which I think is probably high, the addition of a thousand wolves hunting to survive 24/7/365 is the equivalent of having another another 72,000 hunters in the woods. The calculation is 1,000 wolves x 18 elk x 4 hunter success rate.
Wolves are an additive source of elk mortality, and good wildlife biologists will tell you my simple calculation is oversimplifying the take by wolves. I recognize this, and use it only for an illustrative example. The game departments are having to adjust hunter quotas (length of season and number of controlled hunt tags)because of the presence AND RAPIDLY INCREASING POPULATION of wolves. The net rate of increase of wolves outside Yellowstone is something like 24% per year, compounded. You can check the annual state wolf reports. The elk (and deer) to feed these wolves is impacting number and population dynamics, like age and sex, according to game departments in ID and MT. Wolves and bears take alot of calves. I believe this is true in WY outside the NP's as well.
And, one last point "beargrass." Because of the incredible reproduction rate of wolves -24-26% per year (that's after deducting the problem wolves FWS or ranchers kill) some of these wolves will, of necessity, have to be harvested under state management. The hunters, ranchers and outfitter will continue to pressure the states to do something - these are economics based arguments. The longer the wait to harvest wolves, the more that will likely be taken - so maybe it will become a slaughter the longer a legal hunting season is postponed. It is inevitable that the populations will be managed. WY doesn't even want any outside the Greater Yellowstone Area geographically, and hence their "dual status" predator argument, dumb as it is.
Over and over enviros insist that 19,000 head of elk were not healthy, but the wolves were not brought in to bring the number down and they aren't responsible for the very low numbers in Yellowstone presently. The Norris/Firehole herd does not migrate and had stayed in the 600-700 range for many many years, there were 108 left by the end of 2007, and with a calf count of zero to low single digits, they will eventually be gone completely. Is that smart?
I believe the average wolf take has been 1.8 per month per wolf. That does not take into account what the bears, lions, and coyotes take. Like many enviro plans the wolf introduction was the height of stupidity, and extremely expensive.
There are far more wolves today in Yellowstone itself than were "extirpated" during the 42 years that wolves were being shot in Yellowstone. One book from the 20s mentions a serious problem developing with wolves preying on elk and ultimately they killed 3 adults and 4 pups and cured the problem.
your cliam that logging roads are good for elk habitat and fire suppression is utterly bogus. Logging is not good for elk habitat and has been proven to actually INCREASE fire danger. Yes logging clears areas that allow succesionary plants to begin tio take hold that elk graze on, however in the long run the roads cause erosion, allow acess by poachers, fragment habitat, grow dense unatural forests etc etc.
Why cant you admit that roads and human harvest have been PROVEN to have more affect on elk pop. and distribution.
Wolves keep elk on the move and make thierl life harded in some cases and prevent them for overgrazing in other areas. It's called a balance, or predator-prey relationship that you seem to have forgotten since you went to college. According to Ann there are plaenty of elk on the west side of yellowstone druid. WY doesnt want wolves outside of yellowstone, well thats a surprise. Under ESA wolves would be restored to their former numbers and range. Thier former ranger in the west and numbers will not be met and are hardly anywhere near that point, yet you want to blast away.
I realize managemtn will occur and never once did I state I was against management however it is too soon in certain places. Your arguments against roadless, wilderness and cliam of logging helping fire suppression clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding about public lands issue and whats best for our ecosystems.
Redman-hell yeah brother these guys have no clue whats really out in the woods.
As for human impact on elk, that is obvious - alot of people hunt elk for a few weeks a year, and therein lies the conflict.
Some of you folks are so focused on the GYA (Greater Yellowstone Area) and West Yellowstone you forget there are tens of thousands of square miles outside this area, which are home to elk, deer and a growing population of wolves. Idaho Game Department wants to harvest wolves in the Sawtooth, Boise and White Cloud mountain ranges in a number of units there. They are very concerned about the Lolo area (Clearwater River). In each of these, claims have been made that wolves, in addition to other factors like 2007 winter kills, have adversely affected elk populations. They can't control the weather, but maybe the wolves. These are not my conclusion, they are the state's.
Similar arguments are made by MT Game around the state, and supported by research from this Dr. Scott Creel, an ecology professor at MSU, that somebody else mentioned. Back to the Yellowstone area, here is a comment from the MSU press release dated July 15, 2009:
"During winter, nearly all elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are losing weight, said Scott Creel, ecology professor at MSU, and lead author on the study which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.......
Wolves have caused elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to change their behavior and foraging habits so much so that herds are having fewer calves, mainly due to changes in their nutrition, according to a study published this week by Montana State University researchers............The decline in the Greater Yellowstone's elk population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has been greater than was originally predicted. In the three winters prior to the reintroduction of wolves, elk on Yellowstone's northern range numbered roughly between 17,000 and 19,000. In the three winters prior to 2008, annual elk counts had declined to between 6,738 and 6,279." (
And your conclusion about "Under ESA wolves would be restored to their former numbers and range." is factually and legally incorrect. You really should read the delisting rule and more background documents, evn the lawsuits, so you don't keep giving out bad information.
You don't think the Elk know about the late hunt over at Gardiner with all the hunters and the cross fire, and they adapt to go elsewhere?
Try driving down the Madison Valley in the winter and spring You can hardly see the pastures for all the elk laying around and grazing. over 3000 just on one side of the highway. I have personally seen the wolves among those Elk. Since I don't hunt anymore, and haven't in years because once you squeeze the trigger the fun is over and the work begins , I could give a Rat's behind how many permits are issued.
your statement that I called Bull pucky on is, and I quote "Beargrass, the wolves were hauled in to kill elk and livestock and they are very effcient at doing it." You going to back that up with PROOF? or are you like the tree huggers, and just bloviating.
If any one wants any body to listen to them they shouldn't be slanting the issues, just to make a point. Stick to what YOU know as fact and let the others hang themselves.
Does the saying "Cattle free by 93" not ring a bell with you? They missed that target, but are still working on it.
As for the elk learning not to migrate out of the park due to hunters, they can't even get it out of their head that the Lamar and Mammoth are dangerous. There are just a handful left to migrate out. You only have to multiply the near 200 wolves tiems the 1.8 average elk kill per month and you know where the elk are.
Supposedly elk are too dumb not to eat themselves out of food and needed wolves to keep their numbers down. But surely you don't think wolves won't do the same thing and eat everything there is to eat until it is gone.
VonHoldt tested wolves within the boundary Yellowstone National Park and found no evidence of genetic mixing with other populations. Evidence of this within the park requires outside wolves to move into Yellowstone. This was used as evidence that the Yellowstone wolves are not crossbreeding with other populations. The problem with this is that Yellowstone has a very dense population of wolves, so young wolves who are looking for a range of their own are not going to wander into Yellowstone. Yellowstone likely acts as a dispersal source, not as a recipient. There's nothing bad about the study itself, it was just applied incorrectly in court.
As for elk, for starters most elk populations are over the state wildlife management objectives. Northwestern Wyoming in particular has a huge elk overpopulation problem that the state is entirely unwilling to deal with. Although some individual herds have declined substantially, in general elk are going a little too strong.
Elk and logging . . . Roosevelt Elk in particular benefit from logging in the Pacific Northwest because the increased forage availability. The reduction in logging since the early 90s has been directly linked to declines in Roosevelt Elk herds. Whether or not these were artificially high populations is another question. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year funding thinning projects to enhance elk habitat through out the country. Again, removing trees increases the understory forage for elk. In addition, RMEF now participates in stewardship contracts that involve actual logging when it enhances elk habitat.
Back to wolves, many westerners feel lied to by the conservation movement and the federal government and are justifiably angry. Instead of calling westerners names, the proactive conservationist accepts the way things are: you use the feds to shove something their throat, they get pissy. Hindsight is 20/20, but wouldn't it have been wonderful if instead of reintroducing wolves, we'd spent all that money protecting linkage zones between our wild areas. Then the wolves that were already recolonizing the US from Canada would have continued to spread and naturally reestablished their populations without getting nearly as many people's panties in a bunch.
Today, the question is how do wolves and people coexist. For both to be safe, wolves need to be scared of people. Too many of them are not. They should be hit with rubber bullets, chased with ATVs, shocked by electric fence and hunted. The wilder wolves remain, the better off we'll all be.
scientists with no bias in this issue have stated a functioning, genetically diverse wolf population in the northern american west would consist of 2,000-5,000 wolves. Under current proposals states want to have as few as 100 wolves and a total of 300 wolves. 300 wolves wont be functioning it will be a matter of survival. The current population is not within those boundaries of 2-5,000 wolves.
I am acutely aware of the wolves in the white clouds, sawtooths etc. and those areas don not need a wolf hunt. I have heard of few livestock attacks in that area and have personal experience with some of the packs in those areas. Those wolves are not hurting the healthy elk populations in those areas. The clearwater river seems to have a case for a limited, very well supervised hunt. Again certain instances instigate the necessity for a hunt, but that is far from the norm in areas where wolves are present.
As far as my silviculture knowledge being incorrect I dont see where I am incorrect. You made the mistake by saying logging is good for elk habitat. You seemed to be very biased and focus only on arguments that petain to your side of the argument. There are not wolves yet for there to be statewide open season on them.
this article exposes the flawed science and already unsucessful "wolf hunt" in wyoming.
Now the government wants us to believe they know best for our health care and we can take their word all will be well, we are obligated to just take their word that they know what is best. Yeah right, like the wolfers, they lie.
I would be very curious to know about your personal experiences with wolf packs in the three mountain ranges mentioned in the second paragraph of your last post (in which you responded to mine). What is the nature of the experience, when, and in what capacity did you make these observations?
And, are you stating in some official capacity that those areas do not need a wolf hunt, while the clearwater does? ID game dept seems to think differently. Can you be a little more specific on these points?
thanks in advance for a reply.
I am going to stand by the "logging is good for elk habitat" which seems to be the conventional belief (except for keeping roads open, and the erosion problems which result upon which we agree). Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation seems to think that is the case as well, and as natural resource organization they do know alot about elk and habitat improvement for all kinds of wildlife.
Beargrass, that article is nonsense, very prettily written, but nonsense. He doesn't talk about any specific science whatsoever. He just discussed a theory of "shifting baselines." I think what we call wilderness, our ancestors called uninhabitable. That guy even uses the argument that someone who shot dogs would be arrested under animal cruelty. I know I better keep my dog out of my neighbor's pasture if I want him to stay in one piece.
Montana, at least, seems capable of setting reasonable hunting restrictions. http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_8252.aspx Please remember, it's not hunting that decimated wolves. It was poison. Wolves are smart enough that we're not able to hunt them out of existence.
Your reference for flawed science is a piece of junk blog! Hardly any kind of authity on anything, much less wolf science.
Mongabay is a non-authoritative source written by a couple of bloggers. Jeremy Hance, the commentary author for the piece you cite, has absolutely no academic credentials posted on the site, and in the first few paragraphs I found some unverifiable assertions and "facts" in his writing. He has no footnotes and lists no references, which is another big no-no for this kind of thing. This is no scientific journal or research piece to be trusted, by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way, this is a blog, mostly for grade and highschoolers. If you drill down on the website in the "About" section you will see that as well as the background of the staff - what three people, including the founder, one Rhett Butler? They cover the world, too which makes them even more expert in the field of wolf journalism and biology.
Beargrass, you are losing credibility by the minute here, bud.
The Horse Butte was Minus Cattle in 07 but had nothing to do with wolves. Do you see the exaggeration and slant in what you say? Do you see how that is detrimental to you word?
You might as well tell the cops you were mugged/raped, when all you did was fall off your horse. A fib is still a lie.
Still they did not introduce the wolves to eliminate Livestock, and to say so is foolish.
As to you saying the 'enviros' (I prefer Tree hugger) lying and changing the 'rules' Well the Gvt blows the doors off the 'tree-huggers' with lies and idiots. Look at them with the Bison and Brucellosis. The Bison have never passed it. they captured around 40 head of calves have been using their science to 'eradicate' (which no disease has ever been eradicated) from those Bison, but they are still afraid of it 'cropping' up? If the science is that bad why waste all that money and especially on something that isn't guilty. In the meantime WY feedlots breed the disease in the Elk. Yet the Elk are given a pass. And the elk are passing the disease. Make Sense? No! Not any more than Obama's health care Bill makes sense. Still the article mentions killing Wolves whether it's legal or not. Why have laws if they don't need to be followed?
If a wolf were to harass my livestock. It would be the last thing it harassed.
The Elk over here will be grazing leisurely until the evening before opening day. then Poof. They flat disappear.
Have you ever noticed that things go in cycles? You can have a bumper crop of rabbits for years on end then shazam the numbers drop to hardly any Same with most living things animal or vegetable. That's just the way it is. Just like the spoof on global warming. Pooh pooh on that. Again the 'snowflake theory' Who was around during the last ice age to know what happens before the next?
I don't know what makes you insult the blog and it's inventors, but they must be doing something right they are getting a lot of attention, and you are right there with the rest of us. Besides the fact they've been here for quite a while.
I'm sorry, but I've lost what you're trying to say. You seem to be responding to my comment in one of yours, but I'm not sure what I said that you disagree. Could you please me fill me in?
My posts are in english and speak for themselves.
Meaning no disrespect to you or this site, I think there is a duty to read as well as write, in this schoolhouse. You might find Cowgirl's posts worth reading. Her views seem to be well reasoned, articulate, and in your case, not that far off from your own practical views.
Some of us are still awaiting beargrass to come back with answers to the questions he raised in his last post. Beargrass, you still out there?
I say that based on Wyoming's "Bullet Burlesque" in the spring of '08 when testosterone filled the pines of western Wyoming as legions of 21st century frontiersmen went wolf hunting in the short lived Predator Zone where wolves were allowed to be shot on sight ,sans license. A few were....the easy ones; the nonstreetwise wolves; the wolves that were jaywalking near the Elk feedgrounds. In most cases, the hordes of hunter-killers ( 2-leggeds) got off one shot, and that was it. The target wolf was never seen again. Most of the free roaming wolves out there were never seen at all. ( Some advice for the first time Wolf Hunter here: sight in your Leuopold 3x-9x for 500 yards, and use a bipod. You won't get a second shot at a stationary target.).
"Wolf Hunting" is an oxymoron. All summer long, agents of Wildlife Services who do this for a living have yet to terminate with extreme prejudice ANY of the several problem wolves in Wyoming that have taken a few sheep or a calf ...southern Big Horn Mountains, South Pass , upper Green River, etc. that were not radio collared or tracked by aerial telemetry. WS nailed a grand total of two wolves in four months, using all means available at great expense .
Hunting wolves on the ground in the traditional manner has a success rate closer to zero than any quantifiable measure. The Cody rancher who is also an elk hunt outfitter was issued a Shoot On Sight permit for four wolves in the vicinity of his South Fork Shoshone summer range, but hasn't gotten off a shot in 18 months, not for lack of wolves. Perhaps some 3rd generation Night Vision optics are in order there.
So it goes. Long range optics and long range rifles are not enough to equalize the preying field when doing battle with Wolves.
The perverse side of me is waiting for the Great Idaho Wolf Hunt.
Your observation that harvesting wolves will be difficult after the first encounters is affirmed by the chief Department of Interior wolf biologist, Dr. L. David Mech who does research throughout the West and teaches at the U of Minn. He is the guy USFWS goes to for answers on wolf behavior, having studied them for over 50 years. He is also the person originally responsible, with Dr. Doug Smith the chief Yellowstone NP wolf researcer (google his name + wolves + YNP for some more background), for the Yellowstone study design. Dr. Mech does not think as many wolves will be killed in a harvest season as we are lead to believe by groups like Defenders of Wildlife and the Humane Society of the US. Smith also says the biggest source of mortality in YNP is that wolves kill each other.
Furthermore, Mech believes the 2008 estimate of the NRM wolves is closer to 2,100, than the 1,700 that is the official estimate in that year. He also contends that as the wolf population gets bigger, it will be more difficult to estimate their numbers, because of expanded geographic range you need more resources to collar and track them- something that will not happen with tax dollars.
That being the case, there should not be the huge slaughter wolf advocates seem intent on predicting.
Of course, if wolves become shy of hunters it will also be true that they will suppposedly become shy of all humans. Those who want to do wolf ecotourism will have a difficult time finding wolves for their paying clients, or if you are just a hiker wanting to see a wolf that might also be a problem. This is much the same problem some hunting outfitters are having finding elk for their paying clients, or elk hunters on their own, are having right now in areas where wolves have impacted elk behavior and numbers.
Interesting dilemma, don't you think. Maybe they ought to limit those wolf hunters to muzzleloaders with open sights.
The fact that wolves will be hard to kill is exactly why they should be hunted, they will not be so comfortable around people and their animals.
By the way did you notice in the Cody Enterprise that they have to cut elk permits due to predation?
Why do we even have land maggot domestic sheep in the National Forest in the first place ? Do you realize that it was those same sheepmen and other excessively consumptive users of the forest that totally eliminated the Big Horn Mountain elk herd back around 1900 ?---the elk there now are the descendants of the epic transplantation of elk from the Jackson Hole refuge by the railway carload back in 1913 , to restore the herd. The Big Horns' native elk were hunted to near extinction by market hunters and stockmen wanting all the mountain grass to themselves for their alien exotic species. You should see the damage that sheepmen did to the Owl Creek Range and the upper Greybull River before they were reined in.
By the way , you really don't want to get me going on the reduction of elk hunting licenses in Sunlight Basin due to predators, because stating that is the direct result of predation is disingenous a best and a bald faced lie at worst. It more distinctly falls at the feet of Wyo G & F for mismanaging those elk herds in the first place. The Sunlight herd is not responsive to using human hunters as an elk management tool , for a good number of reasons. The WY Game and Fish is shepharding a huge study---paid for entirely by private hunting and gun interests without real wildlife preservationists even being invited to participate or moderate--- that was a thinly veiled attempt to prove that wolves are the reason the Sunlight herd are so far out of balance. Well, the the Absaroka Elk Ecology Study data is showing otherwise. For one thing, the local herds right next door that have some robust wolf packs living right with them are doing just fine. The Sunlight Basin migratory herd(s) have a lot of reasons to be in bad shape currently , but it isn't local predation that is doing it to them. Not at all. There are to my knowledge only 4 wolves living in Sunlight and they are doing precisely what you'd want them to:managing the elk herds nicely. What has severely skewed the elk pregancy rates, cow-calf ratios, bull percentages etc is not the wolves there at all . Wolves inside Yellowstone contribute , but so does several diseases , nutrition , and most of all a legacy of lousy hunting management. Remember, when one guy claims there aren't enough bull elk in a herd, it's exactly the same thing as saying there might be too many cows...and the wolves are the 24/7/365 wildlife conservation worker that can best balance the herds, given the time and opportunity to do so. Statewide, might add.
Finally , nobody owes any outfitter a living or any hunter a personal elk.
I believe most of the sheep in the Big Horns were killed in their pens. You could only understand if you worked hard for something and had it destroyed because it makes someone feel good to know the wolves are back killing.
Goes to show that animals do have a mind of their own, and will do what they deem necessary to survive. Not unlike humans.
A really good history of reintroduction and current status of Yellowstone wolves can be found at Ralph Maughan's excellent blogsite.
http://wolves.wordpress.com/
There are other ways to control populations - baited birth control? Other ideas?
I've seen it so it happens. They take calves the old and the injured.
I could find nothing on Maughn's site about the Mollies and their size specifically. Maybe it is there, but my search yielded nothing.
Here's a Ralph Maughan site link to a short article about the Mollie's , which also frequent my own backyard of the North Frk of the Shoshone River west of Cody WY on occasion:
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/mollys-pack-bison1.htm
The only reason there are so many wolves is because dodo-head livestock ranchers insist on putting out what is essentially a smorgasborg of hooved prey.
Less people - that's what we need.
If you believe that the planet has "too many people" and are convinced that such is unquestionably the case, then do the noble thing. Charity begins at home, so save the planet by choosing yourself as its first sacrificial lamb. Or is your intent to volunteer others for an early exit?
I don't know how many times I have heard the exact same phraseology from people over the last several decades, but the individuals who constantly utter such words are still around making the same argument. If those who speak such things would simply suicide themselves off immediately after such comments, according to their own logic, the world instantly becomes a better place upon their exit. Less people, right?
Rather than their carbon footprint continuing on for decades, by making a quick return trip back to simple carbon they can leave with a conscience-cleansing act upon self, making what remains of our depleting and polluted resources less so.
Further, similar enlightened thinkers, by the commission of that same simple act can lead so many others by their invaluable example. It may sound a bit "Jim Jones" culty and everything, but right where you type from is potential wolf habitat and would be made available for those canines if you would just work that "less people" thing on yourself. If all who pontificate such would sort of have a "Collective Consciousness" moment with each other and all act in concert, tens of thousands of acres of habitat would be opened up all at once!
"Practice what you preach" goes the old saying. Well, are you?
Ummm -- to deny that human overpopulation is a very real problem is either intentional ignorance or deliberate cluelesness -- or perhaps you've already drank the culty Kool-Aid you mention. Advocating human population control has absolutely nothing to do with offering oneself -- or anyone else -- up for sacrifice.
But, I suspect you know that and intentionally opted instead for the ludicriousness of a cheap shot. Of course, such a tactic detracts from any valid point you may have been trying to make, but that's your choice :-)
Frankly I think he has a point, however politically incorrect. I expect some of these illegals are tending sheep or cattle in wolf country, and their labor is probably off the books, but their demand for health care and other services is not.
Think about it an additional 12-20 million people. These folks got to live somewhere, and get their food somewhere. More land and wildlife habitat will go under development for housing and food production. That means less habitat.
If you think this
I didn't mean to ignore your earlier question, so I'll just say that in this Age of True Anti-Intellectualism, living where I do, and refusing to drink the "Let's Hunt Wolves" Kool-Aid, it wouldn't be prudent for me to contribute personal details to the discussion since there are wayyyy to many anti-wolf wingnuts who would use my opinions on this topic to threaten my employment. Sad, but true. After all, this *is* Idaho.
I continue to strongly disagree with your notion that Thoreau would support the illegal killing of wolves as any form whatsoever of justifiable civil disobedience. I again challenge you to cite one single bit of Thoreau where he advocated innocent parties or properties as a valid target for violent civil disobedience. I've not been able to find anything, so if you have better luck, please put it out there . . . or I'll thank you to stop putting words in Thoreau's mouth by completely distorting his discussions of *valid* civil disobedience.
I did not say that Thoreau would have supported it. In fact, I know in his time he would not. Whether you find the described form of civil disobedience, as "valid" or "reputable," “justifiable” or inconsistent with his views, was not my point. I just said that theories developed by others evolve. Bear in mind I am not endorsing it, just describing it. – and pointing out that the whole delisting process has been a failure of government, laying the foundation for the predicted conduct of Commissioner Budge.
Thoreau only came into the discussion, on your assertion that I didn't know anything about the concept as you understood it. I mentioned him so you knew I had a relevant background. May I direct you to a Stanford University website addressing the destruction of property (a subset of violence) aspects. You will see the issue is far from resolved by scholars of philosophy as “civil disobedience” has evolved over the last 150 years. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/]
Let's go back to events dealing with property, like the Boston Tea Party (tea goes in the water to emphasize a taxation issue). More recently, think the Indian-salmon wars in the Northwest in the 1970's. Nisqually Indian Billy Frank, harvested fish and exercised his alleged treaty rights in violation of state game laws. A nitpicker PETA member could argue that was a violent act for the fish. Recall public dumping of a producer's milk (or munure in front of public buildings) in protest of testing and low prices.
We are talking about the illegal taking of wolves here - in essence, property. Again, no violence to people.
I sense that you are not inclined to respect an intellectual argument because it conflicts with your own passionate view, and that truly is the sign of a closed mind unworthy of an educator. I hope I misread your intent.
I dont have to explain any of my wolf encounters with you or anyone else here. The link I posted was not to the correct site, I will attemot to find it later on. The link i thought I posted was about the WY wolf hunt.
Muse
I dont care if I have "credit" here, i'm not trying to impress or be accepted. My words and experiences are true.
You do little to distinguish yourself from other wolf advocates, who twist what little data supports your view. You get pushed into a corner with some of your incredibly outlandish statements and then you say "I don't have to play anymore." Typical conduct for a bull----er who gets called on his game.
I would prefer to stake my views on good scientific research done by qualified scientists who know their field. Dr. Mech, the foremost wolf scientist in North America (see my post above), said under oath in the Montana litigation that there were close to 2,100 wolves in ID, MT, WY even though the official number was close to 1,700, and the net number is growing at 24% per year.
I see that my latest response disappeared into cyber-space rather than posting, and I regrettably don't have time to reconstruct it tonight. I'll try to find time to do so in the coming days. LOL -- it was a good response, too!
what are you talking about? Dr. Mech's own estimate of 2,100 wolves max is still not enough wolves for three states in the northern rockies to have a viable wolf population. Wolf scientists agreed 2,500-5,000 wolves would be viable.
I have made no outlandish claims nor do I care about your or any other of the "bloggers" here. Do you just sit on the computer all summer and then claim you know something about the wilderness etc. Due to extrenuating circum. I have been near a comp recently.
It's a fact the WY wolf hunt was a bust.
I'm not pushed into a corner I just dont care to endlessly argue with a stubborn wing nuts who will kill wolves, scapegoat enviros and never be happy.
get a life druid.
all you do is insult those who have other opinions. I have posted the article intended at the link below. I have never made outlandish claims. Your "science" seems to be against what most north american biologists think is best for the northern rockies.
Do you just sit on a computer all summer druid and then claim you know something about the wilderness. I'm only here due to extenuating circum. Your nothing but a degree touting bully who is as stubborn as he is worng. My claims are nowhere as outlandish as your claim that logging is good for elk habitat.
go badger someone else loser.
New Dixie rather than the New West
cowgirl, muse and droolid you can keep your squabble going, it's a fact that north american wildlife biologists think this hunt is too soon. If you reduce the population to less than 2,000 wolves it's not viable.
peace
nutters
keep voting against roadless, wilderness protections etc.
and then blame wolves for decreasing ungulates and blame enviros for catastrophic wildlfires.
Thats the wing nut way
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. It is too bad you don't back them up with good sources of information. Dr. Mech's declaration in the Montana litigation is available in the Federal Courthouse in Missoula. The case number is Case 9:08-cv-00056-DWM, Document 37. You might be able to find it on the internet. Seems some documents are available on the ID Game and Fish website - search term "L. David Mech declaration".
Mech seems to think the NRM population is sufficiently interconnected to ensure genetic diversity AND even if 300 wolves a year are taken by hunters, it won't be enough to offset the annual increase (paragraphs 20-24).
Still waiting for the website you promised and some authoritative writing to document the 2,100 - 5,000 wolves needed to ensure survival. And, just who are those north american biologists who think wolve management through harvest is too early? still waiting.............?
I guess we will just have to disagree about the effects of logging on wildlife habitat, and whether you really do have any experience in the woods with wolf packs in the mountain ranges the game departments say need wolf control. By the way, wolves really like old abandoned logging grades on which to visibly mark their territory with scat - poop. But, I guess you know that. Those are the same grades that elk used to graze on (nice grass), but now get chased up into steep, dense timber patches.
I assure you I am no wing nut, and probably lean more toward the enviro side of the wolf issue. I just want decisions based on good science.
p.s. Beargass try to limit your caffeine intake to one cup of coffee. I think you overdid it this morning.
Even Ed Bangs, the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wolf recovery project, admits he thinks that 300 wolves are not enough. In a Science Magazine article on February 15 Bangs said, “I personally think it [the recovery goal] is too low.”
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Conservationists_To_Fight_In_Court_For_Gray_Wolves_14410.html
here you go droolid
I looked at the article in the link you provided. Thanks.
Now, pay attention: You will note the article you mention is dated February 25, 2008. The quote from Ed Bangs is kind of irrelevant, because the 300 number was the very minimum USFWS stated back in 1995. The states agreed to manage for much larger target numbers (including a minimum number of breeding pairs) that are contained in their respective management plans.
Bangs states in his own declaration dated May, 9, 2008 in the Montana litigation that MT would manage for a population of 400; ID 500-700; and WY 70-98 plus the protected Yellowstone NP population with 171 or more. (paragraph 6).
Bangs also refutes at some length the claim of the plaintiffs that 2,000-5,000 wolves are required to ensure recovery (paragraph 18, sub A, B, C). You really should read this if you want to know what Bangs stated under oath as true, and under penalty of purjury. Go to ID Fish & Game website, search "Bangs declaration."
More like they watch too many 'Terminator' movies. And they really want to be Arnold!