Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: JC on February 22, 2008, 08:28:00 AM
-
Gray Wolves No Longer Endangered
By MATTHEW BROWN,AP
Posted: 2008-02-22 08:00:37
Filed Under: Science News
BILLINGS, Mont. (Feb. 21) - Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies will be removed from the endangered species list, following a 13-year restoration effort that helped the animal's population soar, federal officials said Thursday.
Off Endangered List: The federal government announced Thursday that gray wolves will no longer be protected under the Endangered Species Act after their numbers increased sharply in the Northern Rockies following a 13-year restoration effort.
An estimated 1,500 wolves now roam Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. That represents a dramatic turnaround for a predator that was largely exterminated in the U.S. outside of Alaska in the early 20th century.
"Gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains are thriving and no longer require the protection of the Endangered Species Act," said Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett. "The wolf's recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains is a conservation success story."
The restoration effort, however, has been unpopular with ranchers and many others in the three states since it began in the mid-1990s, and today some state leaders want the population thinned significantly.
The states are planning to allow hunters to target the animals as soon as this fall. That angers environmental groups, which plan to sue over the delisting and say it's too soon to remove federal protection.
"The enduring hostility to wolves still exists," said Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold, who is preparing the lawsuit. "We're going to have hundreds of wolves killed under state management. It's a sad day for our wolves."
Plans submitted by Idaho, Montana and Wyoming indicate the states will likely maintain between 900 and 1,250 wolves for the foreseeable future, federal officials said.
Wolves have increasingly preyed on livestock as they expanded into new territories. At the same time, ranchers and wildlife agents have made more wolf kills, which are allowed under the Endangered Species Act in response to livestock conflicts.
Since the late 1980s, 724 wolves have been killed legally, and roughly the same number are estimated to have been killed illegally by poachers. Despite that, the overall population has continued to grow at thups critical of such hunts say the government should be moving in the opposite direction, restoring wolves to areas where they are not now found.
The only other areas of the lower 48 states where gray wolves live are the western Great Lakes and the Southwest. A population of about 4,000 wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin was dropped from the endangered list last year, while a reintroduced population of dozens of animals in Arizona and New Mexico has struggled to expand.
In a petition filed Wednesday with the Department of Interior, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resource Defense Council argued new wolf populations should be established in Maine, New York, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Washington and possibly New Hampshire, Texas and portions of the mid-Atlantic.
Federal officials said Thursday there were no immediate plans to reintroduce wolves into other states or regions.
However, an independent wolf biologist said he would be "shocked" if the animal again ends up on the endangered list.
"The last thing any of the states want is for wolves to be re-listed by the federal government," said Daniel Pletscher, director of the University of Montana's wildlife biology program. He added that tolerance of wolves has grown immensely since the species was nearly wiped out.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-02-21 16:36:16
-
I know it's not rational, but I have a soft spot in my heart when it comes to predators. I really have no desire to hunt them and enjoy seeing them in the wild. Obviously when they are doing damage to livestock the ranchers justifiably harvest them, but overall an estimated 1500 animals between 3 states is not a very large number. I hope that if the institute hunting for them, they limit it in some fashion that the population is at least self sustaining. I don't live in the west(yet) but have never seen a wolf in the wild despite numerous trips to montana. Hearing them is about the best that I have been able to do. I had a pack within a couple hundred yards of me while on a trip to the boundary waters canoe area in minnesota after they had made a kill. That was an incredible thrill. I don't know if there is any one event in my life that has made me feel that I was in the wild more than that.
-
should read "they instititute hunting"
-
We saw a wolf on the way to Quetico a couple of years ago, my only sighting. My daughter has seen them a number of times, she live on the border of Voyageurs. I am always amazed by the amount of emotional BS that is thrown around by locals concerning wolves. Every Lab that goes missing, killed by the wolves!! Every calf same thing, until they find that it was all those missing dogs. It is the truth, loose dogs kill more live stock every year in every farming state than wolves do. It is the states job to decide how many wolves they want to manage and do that with scientific principles.
-
I have seen wolves in the boundary Waters wilderness area, and I know that Wisconsin is considering a hunting season in this year's legislation session.
We have 1500(by state figures) in Minnesota alone, and more people are thinking it is in the 3000 figure . I live 20 mi. north of the Twin cities and 15 mi. north of me, we have a pack of two in a small-town area they've been there for two years.
I know the average coyote kills one to two deer a month, and when it comes to newborn deer I would imagine it is higher, I enjoy seeing them in the wilderness, the wolves that is, I just hope that they don't open it wide-open, I hope that its limited to a certain number, and of course the success rate will probably be as good as the deer, which is about 5% to 10%, there is a reason for the Wolf, it's called balance. Now I don't want to start a different subject, but I think that population expansion is a problem. We are living in their territory, and think they are the problem.
Pastor Carl
-
"The enduring hostility to wolves still exists," said Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold, who is preparing the lawsuit. "We're going to have hundreds of wolves killed under state management. It's a sad day for our wolves."
Here's the problem, Doug Honnold and Earthjustice can have all of their wolves they want, but when these wolves damage the property of others (ie. livestock), then Doug and the rest of them should pay restitution. If they can live by those rules, then I bet the farmers/ranchers will too.
Put your money where your mouth is Doug!
-Brett
-
Just asking, does anyone know of a good place where you can find how much livestock damage is done by wolves (documented attacks only)? I've actually been having trouble finding that info.
-
It's hard getting current numbers. Some private anti-hunting groups have actually set-up funds to pay Ranchers for wolf depredations. Defenders of Wildlife has paid out over $300,000 alone.
-
thanks for the info
-
Last year I hunted eastern Idaho, above Salmon, right at the Continental Divide. I was under a mile outside of the Montana border. Wolf tracks in the snow right along side of my tent each morning, tracking deer. They are wonderful to hear howling, really enhances the adventure. They were in the drainage because of the elk I was hunting. Initially I was concerned, but settled down realizing that the wolves are there because the prey animals I seek are in the area. Initially I thought they'd drive the game away but I found elk there anyway. I don't have a problem with my brother wolf, but then I'm not a rancher and I haven't lost stock to the rascals.
I'm glad the wolves have come off the endangered species list as I personally beleive in a smaller Federal Government,allowing the states to determine what's best for the states. Big Brother Fed needs to mind his own business more than he cares to and stay out of the micromanagement of localized issues. Now it's time for the State Biologists to step up to the plate and do what they do best, render expert advice to the State Legislatures...
-
Wolves need alot of land to roam.
The Michigan DNR says there are no wolves in the lower penninsula, but there are too many people who know otherwise. They also say there are around 400 in the upper penninsula. If there were really only 400, they would rarely be seen by anyone. You meet way more residents of the U.P. that HAVE seen a wolf, than who haven`t.
A highly regulated season on wolves would keep numbers in line, and the wolf would again learn that people are to be avoided at all times. Sightings near homes and towns would decrease, and so would some of the problems that occur from
wolves.
-
:campfire:
-
it would be very good for the management to find how many animals ranchers loose to wolves, lions, bears and coyotes, and accurately catalog the percentage. I think the anti wolf people sometimes hype it up a bit, around here there are way to many coyotes. they kill more game animals than people realize, especially the young.
-
Bonebuster
As I understand it, the wolf population in Michigan has surpassed the the number they were looking for. I guess that would mean some in the DNR will be looking to get season for them.
I understand that many have a soft spot for the Wolf. Who knows if sicence or emotion will prevail.
-
Yeah the Wolf is great, in theory. Every
forest that once had them should get a dose of reintroduction....
that way you wouldnt have to drive so far to hear them howl and you could see them run away with your poodle or tear apart a bunch of milk cows from your back porch.
Fish and Game here in this state are anxious to get a season open on them to check there growing numbers ( a good thing). Come to think of it so are the other 2 states where there numbers are exploding (not a coincidence). These states have done a good job of managing wildlife for these last few decades and it sounds like they want to continue to do so.
I hope to draw a tag, and let the wolf start paying for it own kibble. God knows the "Defenders of Wilflife" havent been lately.
-
Wow, with the exception of Randy, not a one of you state your home area is in wolf territory. Except the few wolves in the UP or Minnesota. That said, I like the wolves here. Elk numbers are down, deer numbers are down, and those long time hunters here in Idaho, long used to having an "easier" hunt don't like ANY wolves. There are a lot of bumper stickers that say "save and elk, kill a wolf" and the old policy of shoot, shovel and shut up is prominent among them. What they have failed to realize is the FACT that while elk numbers are down, overall elk herd health is UP. And that there are other factors included in the elk numbers decline. ATVs, etc. I say, the wolf numbers are a bit too high, and I am glad they are delisted. They aren't endangered here.... will I hunt them? Nope, I am with PDK25. But with smaller wolf numbers, I think elk hunting will improve, but I like the wolves out there.
My .02
Mike
-
I have on several occasions wrote and posted a long list facts wolf related that have happened where I live, just north of Yellowstone Park, since the reintroduction of wolves but have decided not to present them again. It doesn’t make much difference; most people have their minds made up and refuse to look at it objectively. My conclusion is that some are ruled and influenced by emotion, led by the anti hunting and animal rights propaganda, arguing for and supporting them in a clueless manner. Others prefer to use scientific information and numbers to manage wildlife in a responsible manner. It’s up to each person to decide how he/she decides to make decisions regarding the wolves.
My personal opinion is when the season opens on wolves I will get a tag and I will be trying to kill one with my selfbow, but if that don’t work, for the first time in fifteen years I will break out a gun (22-250) to reach out and do my part in the survival of our local game species. One last thought if you want and love them so much work to put them in your back yard and remove them from mine!
Think I had better go out to the shop, work on a wolf bow, and settle down before I get more p*****.
-
I'm with you, Walt. It's time the states with wolves get to control wolves. It's gone long enough. Note I said "control", not wipe out. :readit:
There's some numbers at the Wy game and fish website. Cattle and sheep loss and such.
-
Can I come hunt them with you Walt? Bet it would be a howl!
-
WOW. Alot of emotion from the people who don't want people influenced by emotion. I don't think that anyone has stated that they are opposed to a hunting season. Only that they would prefer that their population be sustainable. Just because some people chose not to hunt them doesn't correlate with them trying to prevent others from doing just that, or that they are being "led by the anti hunting and animal rights propaganda". Kinda insulting to put forth that kind of rhetoric, regardless of how p***** you get.
-
Patrick, you have to remember us that live out here amongst the wolves have been listening to the same ol crap for years. I've personally been involved with the Feds and State FWP people in wolf dealings and it's generally just a lot of BS. We have a pack that has raised three litters of pups on the mountain just above our house. I’ve been seeing them here for 7 years and it took three years to convince the powers that be that there was even a pack here. I was basically called everything from a nutcase to a liar even though I was seeing them on a regular basis and even had pictures. There has always been a few black wolves in this pack and the Feds told me there were no black wolves anywhere in this area. To top it off the Alpha male was collared. Bottom line if they don’t admit they are there they don’t have to take responsibility for them.
We were told a pack would need hundreds of square miles of territory each and wouldn’t tolerate other packs close. Well at one time we had three packs here within a six or eight miles radius. That amounted to 21 wolves right here in the same neighborhood. I had two horses run thru fences and cattle guards, (to the tune of $1K in vet bills), our neighbor also had two horses injured, one had to be put down. We had a calf killed along with several kills on neighboring properties. Most of these kills or injuries were confirmed wolf related but I know of no one that was reimbursed for damages. In the last couple years one of these packs contracted mange and has pretty much died out but there are still several wolves in the area.
We have been under what’s called the 10J rule here in MT for a while which means that if wolves are killing your stock or stock dog you can use lethal force to stop it. At the same time if those same wolves were eating my wives Jack Russell legally I’d just have to stand and watch… There have been several instances when Ranchers have killed wolves but most all of them will tell you after the Feds get done you feel like you’ve been drug thru a knothole backwards. You are actually guilty till you prove yourself innocent.
All game in the area has been impacted dramatically, coyotes have practically disappeared, (one was killed and partially eaten last week just up the river from our house) along with foxes, bear, cougar, bobcats… Now I know the wolves aren’t killing everything but what they don’t kill they move or harass out of the area. These guys are the ultimate predators and bullies, where ever they are they rule the roost.
I’ve called in numerous wolves while out bowhunting some within just a few feet. It was very thrilling the first few times but when you see the numbers increase like they have some of that thrill turns into concern. From what I’ve seen from the Officials I would be willing to bet that there are closer to 3000 wolves up here than the 1500 “officially” claimed. I’m not advocating wholesale slaughter but the sooner the wolves are taken out of Federal control and put under the individual State’s Game Management Departments the better. You also have to remember that when wholesale slaughter which included trapping, shooting, poisoning, basically any means was condoned it took a hundred years to wipe out the wolves in the west so I can’t imagine there is any danger of them disappearing again.
-
Dave, if they allow out of state permits, and I hope they do, you are welcome to come and hunt them with me. I have several spare bedrooms that are available anytime you and the family want to visit. They can go skiing or visit Yellowstone while we hunt. If tags were available this morning we could have gone after several wolves across the road and a ¼ mile from my house.
pdk25, I believe it is insulting of you to expect us to accept a non endangered species, the Canadian wolf, which never existed in this part of North America, as a reintroduced species. It is the same as putting a rocky mountain elk in Kentucky and calling it a reintroduced extinct eastern elk. The Canadian wolf is not an endangered species and numbers in the tens of thousands while roaming naturally though out Canada and Alaska.
“I …….but have never seen a wolf in the wild despite numerous trips to montana.” If you want to see one go to the zoo, or if you want to see one in it’s natural habitat go to Canada or Alaska, viewing one in the lower 48 states is unnatural.
A lot of emotion, your dang right, but my emotion is based on reality, scientific facts, and research, where as your is based on pure emotion: “I know it's not rational, but I have a soft spot in my heart when it comes to predators.” Makes one wonder where the seeds of those emotions came from doesn’t it.
Guess you and I have a very different idea of what we consider a thrill: “I had a pack within a couple hundred yards of me while on a trip to the boundary waters canoe area in minnesota after they had made a kill. That was an incredible thrill. I don't know if there is any one event in my life that has made me feel that I was in the wild more than that." Watching, as I have from in the “wild” as well as from my window, a pack of wolves’ takedown and kill elk is not a pretty sight, especially when they only eat part of one then continue their wanton killing spree, killing six more before disappearing chasing after the remaining elk. Believe me there is nothing thrilling about it.
“I don't live in the west (yet)….” the (yet) has me scared; the wildlife out west can’t afford the type of management you support.
-
Not disagreeing with you Doug. I just don't want to do it. I have no problem with controlling the population. I read on the Wyoming Game and Fish website (thanks Barney) that their population is increasing roughly 22% annually in the greater yellowstone area and slightly less overall for the state of Wyoming. It is probably not unreasonable to believe that the growth rate is similar in Montana. It lists a total of 162 combined sheep, cattle and horses(by far the largest number was cattle) that were confirmed killed by wolves in the state of Wyoming and 177 in the Greater Yellowstone Area. No dogs were confirmed killed in this year and only a few in the prior years. Overall not a large number, but a definite trend upward since since 1999. While this trend would probably be self-limiting, wolves aren't the only predator in the woods (enter humans). Obviously this would have a negative affect on huntin. These figures are also almost undoubtedly underestimates of the reality since they are only confirmed kills by wolves. Wolf population may indeed be underestimated, although I am not certain to what degree(information on the state of Wyoming's wolf populaton is available at www.http://westergraywolf.fws.gov). (http://www.http://westergraywolf.fws.gov).) The estimated impact of the wolves on wildlife demonstrated considerable interspecies variability, with elk being a key species affected. Estimates of a decreased hunter harvest of 5-10% in one herd was estimated due to wolf predation, although overall most areas were estimated to have considerably less effect. I don't want to regurgitate the entire research done, but it seems obvious that sooner or later the population will need to be curbed. Wyoming will try to maintain 15 packs and 150 total animals but only commits to 10 packs and 100 wolves. Is this too many? Too few? I can't say, but there are people who are spending alot of effort trying to sort it out. I still stand by my previous posts. I like the idea of wolves in the wild. Someday I will be fortunate enough to live in a state with wolves. I have no desire to hunt them personally and don't mind a "slight" decrease in the overall amount of game available for harvest within reason. After all, there are plenty of other people more than willing to control the wolf population. People who have livestock or pets that are killed by wolves should be reimbursed and usually are. Wolves that are preying on livestock should be culled. I don't have a poodle and I hate New Jersey (sorry, no offense to people from NJ, just not the outdoor opportunities that I want).
-
Pet loss is not reimbursed.
-
Sorry, I didn't get to read Walt's last post prior to posting mine. I'll respond.
Don't presume to know what kind of management I support. I do believe in a scientific approach. I readily admit there is no rationality in my not personally wanting to kill predators. I just have no desire to. Don't worry about the "seeds" of my emotions come from. I'm sorry that your apparent delicate sensibilities can't stand to see a pack of wolves killing the poor elk. Not my problem. I doubt very much that is the concern. Much more likely the effect on the elk hunting. Fine, just say it and be done with it. The states wil be the final arbitor in how the wolf population will be managed. I never stated anything about wolves being a native species, only that I felt a part of the wild when I was close to them. Not a difficult concept. Guess what, you're not the only one that can get p****. Particularly when attacked.
-
I don't live in wolf country.
I believe the wolf has been romanticized to the point where most people don't see it for what it is. To see them kill, for the thrill it seems like sometimes is harsh. But they are what they were created for - a true predator. Maybe that senseless kill was to train a pack member or maybe it wasn't.
I applaud the states being able to regulate the hunting and I'm glad the wolf has been delisted as numbers are growing and problems are occurring.
I would hunt wolf if I lived in wolf territory.
-
Wolves, makes me think how we're always smarter then our parents, until we get old enough to know better. I'll tell ya what they didn't go through all the hassle of getting rid of that animal for nothing.
Simply put, I don't care what some politician in DC or a Sierra Club member in CA thinks of what I should allow on my land. Each pro wolf comment I read is typically reflected by someone who does not have to deal with the problem from their own expense and property. I'll deal with the wolf about 150gr at a time.
... and that's some good stuff Walt.
-
Don't worry about hunting hurting the wolves. They are extremely wary if pushed at all and the half tame ones in Yellowstone don't represent what will be around once they get shot at.
Their reproductive capacity is very high if the game populations are up.
-
I have never seen a wild wolf. I have heard them howl many times, and the tracks they leave in the sand and snow are simply huge.
The U.P. of Michigan has been affected greatly by the presence of wolves. The deer migrate to
yarding areas, where the cover gives them a better chance to survive the bitter cold nights.
These yarding areas have become killing grounds for the wolf. I have never seen the problem with my own eyes but have heard the SAME story from many who have. The wrost part is, it seems that the wolves eat very little of a deer they kill, and often eat NONE of them.
This winter has been especially hard on the deer, between the weather and the wolves. I had a conversation with a man who owns property in a known deer yarding area near Lake Michigan. In a short walk he found over a dozen dead deer. His son has training as a biologist, and said the bone marrow indicates that these deer did not die of starvation, and were killed with large fat reserves still under the skin. Wolf tracks were everywhere. Scavengers, and birds are all that is eating these deer.
I wonder how much of this is happening? Can the wolves really be so well fed that they don`t eat
everything they kill, even in a severe winter?
-
There are numerous instances reported of wolves killing far more than they can possibly eat. Years ago a group of rams were killed in this manner when caught in the bottom of a drainage.
-
I hope the Michigan DNR will keep control of the wolf issue in MI. I don't want to see the general public "vote" on whether we can have a hunting and trapping season on wolves...we'd lose out just like our dove season failed!
It would bring money to the state to be able to purchase a tag to trap or hunt wolves! Look how much money states that allow wolf hunting bring in in license fees.
The numbers will need to be controlled, and the people educated on wolves...right now every pet or bear dog that turns up missing is blamed on wolves...even if wolves aren't in the area.
I do feel some farmers/livestock owners will suffer....however practices can be changed for them to minimize their stock losses. I've seen what the changes can do due to a large sheep farm next to my house with coyotes. Out west I imagine it would be impossible to minimize livestock loss due to sheer numbers of livestock and large areas necessary for grazing.
Walt, can I hunt after Dave...assuming MI doesn't get wolf tags by then?
-
I hope they are a tag per year, I will be glad to shoot one a year. Seen what they do to hound hunting,to the dogs. Just my opinion.. I will shoot them, when the restrictions and proclamations allow..
-
I read Doug Campbells last entry; and it is totally accurate. I live in Idaho; south of Hamilton; which is SW Montana ( correct me if I am wrong about that); and considering wolf data; the wolves that are over there in Montana could be the same wolves we have here- if they do travel the distances they say they do.
I lost a young donkey to the wolves; they panicked it; and it jumped and fell; breaking its neck; and NO I was not compensated; even though I was sitting right there and saw the whole thing go down.
Because the wolves did not kill it directly; there was no compensation.
This winter wolves ( I saw two) including one black colored one - take down another one of my donkeys; ripping a piece of its lip off.
That vet bill is up to me to pay; there is no compensation unless you can prove the wolves did it; and if the animal is dead.
This of course LOWERS the number of livestock and pets being killed by wolves. If a horse is run into a fence and dies; it was not a wolf kill; and that stat does not go into the wolf kill data. Ditto with injuries; ditto with missing pets- even when there is a blood stain in the snow surrounded by wolf tracks.
I have seen wolves in action; grabbing an elk by the flank and then taking off after another; and then later watched the magpies peck at the wound until the elk bleeds to death.
There was a reason the wolves were killed off; and its not because they took down people all the time; its because they are land sharks. The way they kill and maim is disgusting; and I have seen total antihunters buy guns to shoot wolves on sight; after seeing them kill or wound an animal.
I was raised with dogs; and I am a dog person; and I have never killed a coyote; and I do not want to kill a wolf. If I do so; I will not shame my bow when I do it; I will use a rifle.
No offense but a note: it is easy to accept wolves and what they do when your living in an area where you don't see what they do; and are not personally effected by it.
The response around here to the wolves started with a moron putting out poison- which more dogs being walked by my neighbors ate than the wolves did.
Then comes the snares. I have bird dogs; and I take side cutters with me; because if you don't cut the cable quick the dog dies. My stud dog got caught in one; which I was able to remove without cutting; I returned later to the snare; and there was the remains of an elk there- the snare on its neck.
So some of the solutions to the wolf problem are effecting in a negative way.
I will honestly be surprised if we get to hunt the wolves; the anti hunters are hitting the plans with one block after another.
One thing for certain is that it will take an enourmous effort to take them down to level where they are not adversely affecting everything from bears to wolverines to elk and deer.
Our fish and game was gagged from saying anything at all about the wolf reintroduction program; and the guy that did that; he was our governor; and now he is the head of the department of the interior.
That alone is not good.........
-
You have wolverines? I know that coyotes and wolverines compete for food. The wolverines are more endangered than the wolf, if the wolf numbers are stressing the wolverine population, that should be addressed.
-
Yes we have wolverines; my neighbor was keeping track of them for years for the fish and game.
Yes; the impact of the wolves upon the wolverine should be studied and addressed.
When a gag order is put upon the people that are supposed to be managing all the game in a state; and they remain silent to keep their jobs; to me they have sold their souls.
I don't expect the fish and game to address the issue; if they do it will be 10 years before they come to a conclusion; and another ten years to figure out what to do and how to do it.
Idahos fish and game pay is not high; and it does not attract the highest quality folks.
-
Originally posted by Walt Francis:
If you want to see one go to the zoo, or if you want to see one in it’s natural habitat go to Canada or Alaska, viewing one in the lower 48 states is unnatural.
This comes as news to those of use who grew up in Minnesota and who remember seeing them there. And those of us who have seen seen wolf tracks in Wisconsin, after the wolves "unnaturally" migrated there after the Minnesota bounty was ended in the mid-60s and the Endangered Species Act protection was applied in the 70s. And to those who are aware of wolf sightings in Maine, those being animals that "unnaturally" migrated back south without regard to that "natural" international boundary. And to those who know that the feds recently confirmed that it was a wild wolf shot in western Massachusetts last year (http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=4900943) .
-
Charles, you missed the part right before the statement you qoted...Walt was talking about the CANADIAN WOLF, a different species than the one that is now extinct in the lower 48.
"I believe it is insulting of you to expect us to accept a non endangered species, the Canadian wolf, which never existed in this part of North America, as a reintroduced species. It is the same as putting a rocky mountain elk in Kentucky and calling it a reintroduced extinct eastern elk. The Canadian wolf is not an endangered species and numbers in the tens of thousands while roaming naturally though out Canada and Alaska.
“I …….but have never seen a wolf in the wild despite numerous trips to montana.” If you want to see one go to the zoo, or if you want to see one in it’s natural habitat go to Canada or Alaska, viewing one in the lower 48 states is unnatural."
That was Walt's statement in context, and a great point I believe.
-
One of the things that the gag order prevented game biologist from saying was: there were wolves already in Idaho- before the "reintroduction" of the Canadian wolves. They were a smaller wolf; that had been around a long time; as Lewis and Clark mentioned the smaller wolves in this area as they passed through it.
Packs of these 1/3 smaller ( than canadian wolves) wolves were documented. The gag order was put in place to prevent that from being known.
This "reintroduction" from the get-go was screwed up.
Please feel free to ask yourself why the gag order was put in place.
Asking anyone else; even with a freedom of information request: will get you nothing.
But PLEASE feel free to try!!! Perhaps a request from outside the state of Idaho would work.
This is how things work here: A man buys land that is next to a river; and fills in the low laying ground with fill dirt; then sells the property for a huge profit. The federal government upon numerous complaints investigates and fines the man a small sum of money.
The man then does the very same thing again; and is fined a big sum of money- but a small portion of his profits from selling the land.
The man then is elected to the government and is put in charge of how to diseminate the fines from acts like he committed.
He trys to make that work to his advantage; fails; and gets elected governor.
Good luck on your freedom of information request; as it very well could be the solution to the wolf problem.
-
ALL THE ABOVE IS DOCUMENTED.
-
Originally posted by JC:
Charles, you missed the part right before the statement you qoted...Walt was talking about the CANADIAN WOLF, a different species than the one that is now extinct in the lower 48.
No scientific authority I can find (among the several volumes here in my library on the subject) identifies as a separate species the Canadian gray wolves that were brought into the Northwest for the reintroduction. (There are lots of debates about various theories of subspecies among Canis lupus.) If you or anyone else has any contrary authority on the claimed differentiation into two species I'd welcome an opportunity to see it.
-
Brian, something to go along with one of your comments. Wolves were "reintroduced" in Jan '95, I think..... Jerry Kysar shot one in the Teton Wilderness on sept. 30th of '92. :readit:
How do you reintroduce something that was already here? :knothead:
-
Charles,
I think you're right on the species part, and as you point out, there is a lot of discussion about different subspecies of wolf. I think the point some of the others are trying to make is that the wolves introduced were different size-wise and behaviorally from the pre-contact wolves of the area. Whether that is a difference at the species/subspecies/race level could be moot. A friend is a long-time game warden in Idaho, and the story he has passed on to me is a lot like the above; pre-contact wolves there were smaller, tended to be lone wolves or small packs, and their impact on the large big game populations thereby not as substantial as today. As far as wolves go I guess I'm middle of the road; really enjoy hearing them, seeing them, studying their tracks, but I've also hung a number of them on the wall and look forward to the next time. I also think locals need to make these decisions as they are the ones that live with the decision. Thanks for your time.
-
OH BOY....I've tried to stay aloof long enough.
Wyoming has a saying about Poachers. "Mutiny on your Bounty". In 2006 the drainage that I live in and work in, as a business, had the LARGEST single pack of wolves outside of The Kings Forest(Yellystone) I have seen daily as many as 14 wolves in one bunch roaming my place as well as my neighbors looking for lunch. This pack resides here Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. Let me remind you 14 wolves is only a part of the larger pack (sub pack) is the term used by the G-men. Do you have any idea what it takes to keep just those 14 bellies full? Now I would like to paint you a Word Picture of what it's REALLY like as a Businessman.
Let's say that you own a Burger King and every so often, like 1 a week. A band of 14 hungry thugs stops by and takes all they can eat and trashes that much more. Gets all your help shaking in their shoes, and hurts a few some so bad they won't ever work again.
You call the law. They amble in look things over listen to what ya got to say, they even take a few pictures of the mess, foot prints, gather all the evidence and tell ya ,IT Looks LIKE THUGS, LOOKS LIKE THUGS WORK, THE PRINTS ARE THUGS PRINTS. But we just don't know for sure it was THUGS.
So now ya take yer case to the THUGS Insurance company that has promised you help if the Thugs come to your BUSINESS. Only to find out because the THUG LAW can't POSITIVELY say they were THUGS ya can't get payed. How long can YOU keep your Burger King.
If you try to defend your BUSINESS against these THUGS, YOU then become the Law breaker.
These Government Sponsored Terrorist have NO FEAR of Man, NONE...NADA....ZIP"O" because they are "ENDANGERED". Can any of you tell me WHY a species that roams abundantly, to the North and is Legally taken, Can merely be transported south a few hundred miles and become "ENDANGERED"?
I am a Veteran and VERY proud of the fact that I defended OUR constitutional rights to defend or property. My business is my property. I have earned the right to defend that property.
It is TRUE that they are "ENDANGERED" I won't idly stand by and allow THUGS to STEAL my business nor should anyone else. Because it is MUTINY ON OUR BOUNTY.
De-Listing is finally going to get two things in line #1 It will be a legal way for businessmen to control the THUGS and get them into a manageable pool. #2 It will instill some very much need Fear as in (DOMINION/RESPECT) that might serve to deter the willingness to operate so brazenly.
-
Originally posted by chinook907:
Charles,
I think you're right on the species part, and as you point out, there is a lot of discussion about different subspecies of wolf. I think the point some of the others are trying to make is that the wolves introduced were different size-wise and behaviorally from the pre-contact wolves of the area. Whether that is a difference at the species/subspecies/race level could be moot. A friend is a long-time game warden in Idaho, and the story he has passed on to me is a lot like the above; pre-contact wolves there were smaller, tended to be lone wolves or small packs, and their impact on the large big game populations thereby not as substantial as today. As far as wolves go I guess I'm middle of the road; really enjoy hearing them, seeing them, studying their tracks, but I've also hung a number of them on the wall and look forward to the next time. I also think locals need to make these decisions as they are the ones that live with the decision. Thanks for your time.
Charles, Timothy hit it on the head. While I have no genetic typing that they are different species (mainly because the indigenous species is now extinct), historical accounts provide evidence that there was definately a difference between the wolves introduced and the wolves that originally existed in that area.
Good post timothy.
Preach it Brother Vance.
-
1. We don't need wolves brought in, because we already have wolves here.
2. You can't bring those wolves in under the ESA, because they're not the same species as the wolves we already have.
3. We can't prove that the wolves you brought in are different because the original wolves are all extinct. (Ignore our argument no. 1 above.)
4. We can't actually prove that the wolves you brought in are a different species from the wolves we have/had, but we hear lots of stories from game wardens and property rights advocates that they're different.
5. The "locals" should make all the wildlife management decisions because they know best. Just please keep sending those federal dollars to manage the wildlife refuges, National Forests, BLM lands, etc., that are so handy for us locals.
6. We're law and order advocates here in the West and we adhere strictly to the Constitution. But when an elected Congress passes a law, an elected (Republican) president signs that law, and the courts affirm the decisions of federal employees and cabinet officers in implementing that law, we reserve the right to "shoot, shovel, and shut up."
Have I left any out?
-
just because something is done legally does not make it right.
eidsvolling, I cant figure out if you are against de-listing or local self determination, or if you just like arguing :D Do you have an actual position on this issue? Not being sarcastic, just want to know.
-
I'm against delisting if it plays into the hands of state politicians who are winking and nodding as they promise to respect what has been accomplished. MT has submitted a credible and creditable proposal for state management which I support. ID and WY politicians have a history of rabble-rousing antagonism toward wolves and the reintroduction program. I do not trust them to honor what has been accomplished.
And here's a shocker for anyone inclined to pigeonhole me. I have publicly opposed the transplanting of gray wolves into the Northeast, because the DNA evidence now shows that they were probably not the indigenous species.
-
"1. We don't need wolves brought in, because we already have wolves here." Yep, already wolves there...the re-introduced variety, so no need to reintroduce more.
"2. You can't bring those wolves in under the ESA, because they're not the same species as the wolves we already have." Nope, not the same species as there WERE.
"3. We can't prove that the wolves you brought in are different because the original wolves are all extinct. (Ignore our argument no. 1 above.)" Nope, goes right along with it both 1 and 2. Existing wolves are from Canada, not local populations (extinct).
"4. We can't actually prove that the wolves you brought in are a different species from the wolves we have/had, but we hear lots of stories from game wardens and property rights advocates that they're different." Nope, and you can't prove they are the same.
"5. The "locals" should make all the wildlife management decisions because they know best. Just please keep sending those federal dollars to manage the wildlife refuges, National Forests, BLM lands, etc., that are so handy for us locals." Yep, when it comes the livelyhood of locals, you better believe they should call the shots. The Gov exists to serve us, not us to serve them. Federal dollars should not be spent to take the dollars out of local pockets (other than the normal taxes).
"6. We're law and order advocates here in the West and we adhere strictly to the Constitution. But when an elected Congress passes a law, an elected (Republican) president signs that law, and the courts affirm the decisions of federal employees and cabinet officers in implementing that law, we reserve the right to "shoot, shovel, and shut up." " Yep, because those people don't have to watch their horses gutted by wolves and then not get reimbursed because they couldn't prove the wolves did it....and if they did, they would be arrested for the proof.
"Have I left any out?" Nope, you pretty much brought up all the points again...you just needed a little clarification of them. Happy to help.
-
Originally posted by eidsvolling:
[QB
And here's a shocker for anyone inclined to pigeonhole me. I have publicly opposed the transplanting of gray wolves into the Northeast, because the DNA evidence now shows that they were probably not the indigenous species. [/QB]
However it's OK for the States of WY. and ID. to be the recipients of such FOOLISHNESS, Because their "REBEL ROUSERS" who want to protect what they have! Pretty clear to me how the WEST rates
-
Charles
In regards to #4 of your list; the fish and game DOES have the needed information. The packs that were here were well documented and verified.
It was the gag order that kept that information from being put into the equasion.
In regards to #5; the locals are the ones that see their dogs torn to shreds; the elk with one bite out of their leg with magpies picking at it; and groups of bull elk killed by the wolves with no more than the killing wound on them- no evidence of the wolves even feeding on them.
I found 6 bull elk in one group killed that way.
The bull elk congregate separately from the cows; and in groups in snow nearly to their bellies. When caught in that deep snow; and with tall slippery inclines the elk cannot use for escape- the wolves go on killing sprees.
The local people see this; and it is disgusting and waste of a valuble game animal.
I am not trying to offend you at all; but do you see this where you are? If you go for a walk from your home for 3 miles; are you going to find this kind of thing every time out?
Are you seeing less black bears; and black bears with 3 legs ( wolves find bears in their dens and pull them out and kill them- check with the studies done in Alaska on this).
Are you living in the effected area? If you did do you think you would be motivated to say something; or do you think you would not be motivated.
And what would your stance be; having hunted elk all fall for decades; and seeing dead bulls with a handful of flesh missing- killed and left by the wolves?
What would you think if your fish and game department was not allowed to tell you about the truth about a wildlife decision that is costing you security in the woods ( the wolf biologists that claim wolves are not dangerous carry pistols now)(after some standoffs with circling wolves)- as well as the loss of mature bulls; and deer and all things slow and earth bound?
Even mountain lions lose game taken to wolves; after expending valuable energy to bring in down.
Yes; I am a local; but who better to say what is going on- than those that are there observing it?
If we believed for one moment that the actions of the fish and game here were to do more than monitor the fish and game populations and act politically- we might have faith in them.
That is not the situation though.
As to #5
Yes; there are a lot of dollars coming into this area from the forest service and the blm. Fires produce small cities of consumers overnight; quite literally.
But to the forest service the 'perfect forest' is not a diverse forest; it is lumber trees with a golf course underneath. Underbrush is not trees breaking down and enriching the earth; and wildlife of all kinds living off it. It is a 'dirty yard' that needs to be cleaned up.
If you bowhunt here; the biggest source of conflict is the closed roads and areas that the forest service does not enforce vehicle rules on.
So; while society here benefits from the agencies; the bowhunter loses because of ATVs and motorcyles off legal trails. Walk all day and have a fat man on an ATV pass you and then tell me your happy with the forest service!
in regards to #6
Please put into that the fact that the fish and game was under a gag order; and their input was not allowed.
Your totally right; we have no legal right to shoot shovel and shut up.
I am telling you that antihunting women are arming themselves with that intent however; and if that doesn't mean something to you; then perhaps you should move out here and become a local yourself :campfire:
I respect you; and your the very person we need to be able to convince of the situation out here.
Hope someday we can do that. You know while the elk/deer/bears and other game animals are still here enough to hunt. :(
-
I suspect that if a disease killed off all the deer and elk throughout 98% of their range in the lower 48, few of us would be content to know that "at least there are healthy populations of deer left in Canada." Yet that's an acceptable argument for wolves for some...
As far as wolf lovers putting their money where their mouth is, Here is a link to a complete list of compensation payments made to livestock producers since 1987. Over a million dollars paid out on claims for 1,084 cattle, 2079 sheep and 84 other animals (horses mules etc) killed or probably killed by wolves.
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/full_list_of_payments_in_the_northern_rockies_and_southwest.pdf
I don't have a problem with hunting wolves, provided that sustainability of the population is the first consideration. Unfortunately, it seems like the biggest proponents of opening hunting have a zero tolerance for wolves. No wonder conservationists get concerned about delisting.
-
Brian has a pretty good handle on what is happening out here in Idaho. I'll reiterate something he touched upon regarding politicians in this state. It's generally known that Idaho is looked upon as the most republican state in the nation, elected official wise. For the most part, these politicians are basically anti-big game advocates who continually try to strangle any efforts by the Idaho F&G to promote increasing big game populations because wild populations of elk, deer, sheep and antelope directly compete with domestic livestock on all federal land. They would like to see any big game animal that "trespasses" on private land eliminated, and if it was enclosed in a "high fence and killed for profit" all the better. When the wolves were let loose, the politicians forbade the F&G from even saying the word "wolf", and I'm starting to think it was because they could see a demise of the big game herds coming, could blame it on wolves and have a win-win for the domestic sheep and cattle faction.
Now, back to the wolves. I've tried to find info on wolf size/location on the earth, and haven't had much success. I grew up in northern Minnesota, and back in 1965 I looked at a wolf hanging from a scale that pulled 135 pounds. Seemed to be pretty big at the time, and was about eight feet long. Deer fed for sure, and it was bigger than most deer. Whenever I hear someone say the Canadia wolves are bigger than the lower 48 wolves, I wonder how that came about. What was the dominant food source for the last ten thousand years? How many million buffalo roamed the lower 48, and were they smaller than their Canadian relatives? Are the big game animals of Canada so much bigger that the wolves "evolved" so much bigger? I really don't think a couple hundred miles makes any difference in wolf size evolution.
-
Mark U you seem to have a distrust for the motives of politician. i would state that i am not to sure that either party can be trusted universally for their motives on fish and game issues. Money talks and politicians listen. i wish when it came to fish and game science counted, but that would mean that money would loose its influence and where would we as bowhunters be then? I don't know. We are conditioned to be partisans, black and white for or against, I hate thinking about these things when I am enjoying nature with my bows and canoes. When we are supposed to obediently react to issues one way or another i fear we may loose more of our hunting rights in the confusion.
-
Steve...Point well taken with the Payments, However that serves to only show one side of the coin. In my opinion. The side that justifies SOME attempts have been made to rectify the problems.
Where is the other side, the side that shows DENYED PAYMENTS for claims turned in.
5--2 year old Heifers TURNED IN----Payment for 1, because the others couldn't be confirmed. Same pasture, same night less than 50 yards apart.
An PLEASE make sure to point out that it IS NOT any Government agency making these payments. Explain to the readers WHO PAYS and WHERE the Money comes FROM.
-
Originally posted by Iron Bull:
An PLEASE make sure to point out that it IS NOT any Government agency making these payments. Explain to the readers WHO PAYS and WHERE the Money comes FROM.
My pockets, your pockets, the locals pockets. Sounds like a poor investment, especially for the locals.
-
I believe it is a private group Defenders of Wildlife, who says they will pay for wolf damages.
Which of course wolves never cause any damage, they just look nice and fluffy for the camera. Their pictures never show anyone the pleasure killing sprees that occur. Why is it that the "defenders" are always from somewhere where there are no wolves, but they want to reintroduce them in someone else's back yard?
A healthy distrust of all politicians and always asking the question "who profits?" should be the first reaction whenever the lords on high make a new proclamation.
-
The "Defenders" have paid out in excess of $300,000 so that they can keep folks quiet about wolf livestock damage. Pet losses aren't reimbursed.
-
As far as elk go. Part of the problem is that the elk of the states these forest evolved wolves are being introduced are actually plains animals that have been forced to adapt to mountain life because of human encroachment. The elk have had less than 200 years to adapt to this habitat while the wolves have always lived in such terrain and are alpha predators in the forests. The elk are at a great disadvantage to this type of predator. The plains wolf(which was smaller then the Canadian variety) that is mostly gone is the predator they evolved to elude.
-
That last is an excellent point Dave...something Vance and I have been discussing but unable to put into words as well as you have.
-
Vance, JC, Dave and others,
Defenders' Wolf Compensation Trust is a privately managed trust fund maintained through private donations that pays individual ranchers for confirmed and probable wolf kills as ascertained by the USDA Wildlife Services program. Since 1987 when it was established they have paid over $1 Million for 785 wolf depredation events. The fund was set up because Defenders realized there would be conflicts between wolves and livestock and wanted to take an active role in mitigating some of the hardships faced by ranchers. Is it perfect? of course not. Such a program would be vulnerable to fraud without strict controls. For every livestock killed by predators, thousands die from diseases, weather related causes and other factors for which ranchers do not get reimbursed. So of course, if there is a program that will pay for wolf depredations, every missing cow and sheep will get chalked up to wolves in the hopes that some losses can get recouped. The eligibility for reimbursement is clearly spelled out on Defenders website.
I worked for Defenders for two years(97-99) on wolf restoration issues in the Northeast (where I was hoping they would once again roam in my back yard). I know the issues for and against wolves very well. I've heard it all from both camps and it always amazes me how the extremes from both sides refuse to educate themselves in pushing their agendas. I guess arming oneself with the truth makes it more difficult to obfuscate the issue with rhetoric. The tactics used by both sides are identical... prey on the ignorant and uninformed with half-truths, innuendo and outright lies to sway them to their side.
For instance, how many times to I have to provide info on the Defenders wolf compensation program before JC stops implying that the compensation payments are coming out of his and our pockets???
Or when will Dave stop characterizing it as hush money to keep ranchers silent when Defenders themselves toot their own horn at every opportunity to get credit for the program.
When will wolf opponents stop critizising wolves for killing inhumanely. Wolves have no moral obligation to kill their prey humanely. They are dragging down animals up to 10 times their own body weight with nothing but their teeth. Who in their right mind would expect a clean kill. To cast wolves as evil and barbaric for doing what they do is anthropomorphism at its best. Mother nature isn't pretty. Get over it.
Wolves are probably the most researched species on the planet next to white tailed deer. There is information in abundance on their body sizes, killing efficiency, etc... All you gotta do is look for it. There really is no excuse to be uniformed on this issue, yet it is so frequently argued from perspectives that have no basis in reality. We like to blame the politicians, but the reality is they are merely a reflection of their most vociferous and wealthy constituents.
The shame of it is, without the rhetoric and emotions on both sides of the issue, wolves would be easy to manage and would have been delisted long ago. For the record, my personal view is that ranchers should be able to protect their livelihood, hunters should be willing to accept lower game densities to be responsible conservationists (which by my definition includes concern for all species- not just those I like to shoot), and states should have the management authority for wolves.
-
:clapper: :clapper: Someone has been paying attention in CLASS.......Thanks Dave
In the past, the wolf Population and Species within the (Rebel Rousing) states have been manageable. Now everything is expected to deal with this new and Different man made Invasion, with the attitude they will adapt, and they will over the equal amount of time it has taken them to adapt to the current predation, Not done over night. However they DESERVE the same help as the Beloved Wolf has had, as they are adapting. We continue to hunt Big Game AND ALLOW the wolf a SPECIAL UNFETTERED status to join right in the fray. Who will come out the WINNER. MAN
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d171/IronBull_/Smileys/thsign-backtotopic.gif)
Why all the FEAR over the DE-Listing?
This act has the blessing of the FEDERAL.. Trained Specialists as well as the FEDERAL Endorsed Scientist. What has everyone so worried?
-
Dave,
The Algonquin wolf is one of the smallest subspecies, but regularly kills moose. I have a hard time believing that elk know if the pack o' wolves chasing them are made up of 85 pound or 110 pound animals and the former is as able to kill an elk as the latter. The whole body size issue is a red herring as is the "different species" argument.
-
Steve...Thank you. I understand completely what you are saying. And as you may also note, I do have FIRST hand involvement with the issues.
You have done a very good job on presenting this in as Non-Partisan view, as it can be presented. I applaud you for you stance on States in Charge and Protection of property.
I have held 2 Kill Permits over the past, because of livestock losses. Neither have I used. For myself and my neighbors it a Huge step forward just knowing that we CAN protect our investments.
-
Steve a predator that has evolved to hunt the timber has advantage over prey that evolved for living in open spaces. Straight out the "Defenders" money is hush money to get folks to not cry out about what happens on their ranches. Who are the private donors providing this money? As far as wolves in the northeast, they are here. One was killed by a rifle deer hunter in VT last year when he thought it was a coyote as was one killed in NH. I am sure they followed the moose right down from Canada. They're predators and will go where the food is like any other animal. natural migration is fine by me, nature has a way of doing it's own housekeeping when allowed. We on the other hand don't have a very good track record with introducing species into ecosystems. Humans tend to do more damage than good no matter how well intentioned they are.
-
Dave, no need to tell me about it. I manage a multi million dollar invasive species eradication campaign.
As far as Defenders comp fund goes...read it yourself.
http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/
To get you started, here it is from their website
Start quote>>>>>
The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Trust
The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Trust is a model of the incentives that might be offered to private landholders for supporting threatened and endangered species. The trust is used to compensate ranchers in in the US northern Rockies and the Southwest US for all verified livestock losses to wolves.
Financed by private donors, this fund helps to eliminate a major factor in political opposition to wolf recovery and to shift the economic burden of wolf recovery from livestock producers to those who support wolf reintroduction.
End quote>>>
They are a 501C3 and their records are publicly available. Request it if you really want to know.
-
I don't need to look, we both know what camp donates the biggest amount.
-
This makes for interesting reading also, so is it the Federal Government driving the reintroduction or campaign donations and lawsuits from groups like this? They have it all mapped out.
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolf/places_for_wolves_2006.pdf
-
Wolf proponents ponying up cash to reimburse ranchers losing livestock to wolves. First they need to put their money where their mouth is, then... when they do, its dirty money???
I'm really not sure I see your point.
-
Dave- Glad to see you found the website. My wife wrote that report and I'm pretty proud of her. Turns out, she shoots a traditional bow and while she doesn't hunt, she eats the venison I put on the table. I guess things aren't always what they seem to be are they?
Steve
-
Nicely written report. Nice how friendly the wolves look and such. Geena Davis and William Shatner shoot recurves themselves. Confusing archers with bow hunters just a little there. Now when the wolves have been reintroduced everywhere (after all the wolves can manage game populations nicely without help from us, they did it for 1000s of years before our arrival)and tags are greatly reduced for deer, elk and moose and thus prices for them increase greatly to keep the state F&Gs funded, I wonder what happens to the number of hunters we'll have then?
-
Steve, first, I did not say ALL reimbursement came from taxpayers pockets....that makes my point even more firmly: federal reimbursement is a paltry sun for what's paid in.
What do you say to those that had multiple losses but time and time again DNR says "nope, can't prove it was a wolf"? Tell me how they should go about this reimbursement. Let's spread the word, because there are way too many losing lots of money DIRECTLY from wolves. I've seem it first hand...and well, seeing is believing in this case.
So, since you say these people should be able to defend their property, would you advocate the killing of wolves in the act of property damage, leaving the animal where it lay, calling dnr and letting them see the torn up calf (or whatever)? Would that work?
What about the indirect damages...as Doug says a horse chased by wolves is destroyed for running through a fence. What do they do for them through your organization?
I love the ideology of the wild with all it's glory...wolves included. But since man has encroached, something has to give...and it's gonna have to be the wolves. Not to the point of extinction imho, but certainly more than it is currently.
-
Dave... Point well taken an archer doesn't a bowhunter make. Conversely, don't assume that all wolf proponents are anti-hunters.
JC- Yes, I would advocate ranchers being able to kill wolves in the act of killing livestock. I would also support the carefully regulated recreational hunting and trapping of wolves. Incidentally, within the reintroduction area livestock owners have always been able to shoot wolves in the act of attacking livestock. This was allowed under the often referred to 10J rule. This did not apply to NW Montana wolves because that was not a reintroduced population, but a natural colonization from across the border in Canada.
To further clarify, NONE of the compensation funds come from taxpayer $. Only verified kills or probable killls are compensated. To my knowledge indirect damages are not covered at all. Not sure what you mean by "your organization". I work for the USDA Wildlife Services program...the agency that USFWS calls in to remove problem wolves, and who verifies the livestock depredations. I don't represent DOW and haven't since I left their employment in 99. However, I do have much more contact and experience with them than anyone on this list and I can assure you, they don't huddle around the table plotting how to take away sportsmen's opportunities. They are focused on the restoration of a species which was wiped out of 98% of its former range in the lower 48. I'd say wolves have done their share of giving historically. We've just gone so long living without them that we've let ourselves believe we can't live with them. Wolves are gonna kill livestock and no compensation program is going to remove all the costs to livestock producers. Its the cost of doing business. Coyotes, cougars and bears all kill livestock and game too and they ain't putting ranchers or hunters out of business.
-
Thing is Steve the people pushing this are warping the ESPA as for this is an introduction not a reintroduction. The wolves that once inhabited tht area are gone and the replacements never belonged there to start and to give them protection under that act is just legal mumbo jumbo. You're right not all supporters of these introductions are anti's, but many are. I stand by my statements and the packaging of the entire thing.
-
Them being here is now water under the Bridge.
What Could-a and Should-a is pretty much a mute point at this point. I wanna get past the PAST and get to the NOW WHATS. Which was the ORIGNAL Posture in the POST. The part about the DE-LISTING quote that JC posted. I might add this has been a very respectful and healthy discussion.
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d171/IronBull_/Smileys/thsign-backtotopic.gif)
"Why all the FEAR over the DE-Listing?"
This act has the blessing of the FEDERAL.. Trained Specialists as well as the FEDERAL Endorsed Scientist. What has everyone so worried?
-
So what do you think of the red wolf recovery efforts in NC and the Mexican wolf in AZ/NM? The question over what SUBspecies is native to those areas is not debated as it is in the northern rockies...
-
They aren't on the plate. I agree let's get this back on tack. The western numbers have met an exceeded the target numbers by as much as 500%. There is only so much game to go around and if the wolves aren't responsibly managed they will either starve which wouldn't make for good news stories, have to increase their depredation on domestic livestock, or perhaps expand into territories outside the project and thus cause a whole new group of issues though it would keep the folks that the millions spent so far on this project have gone to in business for even longer impacting other states.
-
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/
Today's message from State of Idaho, Dept of Fish and Game re: the wuffy situation
-
Now time for the new lawsuits against hunting them to begin...
I really want to imput on some of the things said here about the reimbursement for loss of livestock by wolves.
First off; you have to prove the wolves killed the livestock. And I DO mean prove it.
I had a young donkey that I kept finding laying near death on the ground - and it was with other donkeys ( which I use for packing).
I had no idea why the donkey was nearly dying; I would take it in my cabin; and in an hour or so it could stand again; and it would eat; and I would keep it in my barn for a day until it was rowdy and trying to get out. This happened over and over; and finally I sat in the barn to observe what was going on.
At about 3 in the morning; all the animals panicked; the young donkey jumped up in the air and came down on weak legs; and broke its neck.
I turned to see two wolves within ten yards of me; that had run along the pen with my animals in it. There was another wolf in the background and darkness.
I called fish and game; and an officer came out and said that as the donkey died from falling - it was not a wolf kill.
My re-embursement for the loss of the donkey? Zero.
That was the winter before last; and just a week earlier; unknown to me -the first wolf released in the reintroduction program died from a car collision: about a 100 yards from where my donkey died.
I can only presume that in the wolves traveled through the neighborhood; the panicking of my animals; and the exhaustion of my young donkey-- were tied together.
This winter; I had a wolf grab my favorite pack donkey by the muzzle; and tear off a piece of his lip. I saw the two wolves involved; and they were within 20 yards of my cabin when it happened.
My donkey lived; so I get zero compensation for any vet bills that resulted.
Livestock my dear out east biologist- is not only cattle meant for slaughter; but horses and donkeys and mules and llamas. These animals cross the line from being "just livestock" into more than that. I have had the donkey that was bitten on the lip; since it was a baby in 1986.
I have taken him on month long trips into the wilderness; hauled out game with him; taken him in parades. Literally hordes of kids have given him carrots and apple slices; and petted him; and hugged him. He is a pet.
My neighbor had a prize winning horse that he rode and enjoyed as a companion in the wilderness. Its face was torn off by wolves.
You cannot be paid for the loss of part of your heart!!!
Someone mentioned how could the wolves in Canada be any bigger than the wolves that were here.... well do some research into that please- like go to Canada and look at the size of whitetail deer compared to the size in Texas.
Further north you get the bigger the animal.
We had a different kind of wolf here; 1/3 smaller; and that makes a huge difference; as did their hunting strategies. Biologists HERE studied them and their habits; and while an eastern wildlife biologist might think that counted for something: once again---there WAS A GAG ORDER PUT ON THEM TO SHUT UP!!!!
How can you imply that biology was a factor- when biologists were NOT allowed to factor into the plan????????
I understand you like the thought of seeing wolves here- and the thought of nature balancing itself out.
This is an UN-NATURAL introduction of wolves NOT a NATURAL ONE.
You rightfully assume that our biologists are all top of the line; and some are. But we had a bear biologist that made the absolute claim that bears did NOT kill deer fawn and elk calves after an extensive 'study'.
He was the one that told the prime minister of Ontario Canada that bear baiting- killed baby bears; and that with some cash from the antihunters- closed down the spring bear hunt there.
While all along - he openly said it was not true: to people like me.
I used to live in Boise; and knew people that worked in the fish and game department. So; I would go there and have lunch with them. If I wore the clothing of a biologist.. I looked the part; and I used it to my advantage with other biologists there.
I was kind of a spy. I can tell you without any question that the fish and game department here is led by greed: and not a concern over the management of wildlife. More the 'observation of wildlife'.
Well; we here observe too. We observe the wolves killing anything they can. Dogs; cats; horses; donkeys;cattle; and they HAVE 'fronted off' people.
There are written reports of guides being surrounded by wolves. They held their fire.
There are people that have had the wolves kill their dogs while out walking or hunting with them.
The Salmon river holds some rifles in its riffles !!
People should not be forced to break the law; because of the lack of understanding of the impact upon them: by people not effected the way they are!!!
I bet the water is just fine for swimming right now in Hawaii. Here its just above freezing.
Is my saying 'its too cold to swim' correct; or incorrect?
I am really frustrated; because if people argue that the water is fine -where they are- think the water is fine here: and I need their support in realizing its too cold to swim... I do not know how to reach through that ignorance and smack them with reality.
And the elk and deer; and bears and mountain lions and so much other wildlife here- depend on everyone understanding the situation.
This is a dang shame- at best.
-
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
Not sure what you mean by "your organization". I work for the USDA Wildlife Services program...the agency that USFWS calls in to remove problem wolves, and who verifies the livestock depredations. I don't represent DOW and haven't since I left their employment in 99. However, I do have much more contact and experience with them than anyone on this list and I can assure you, they don't huddle around the table plotting how to take away sportsmen's opportunities. They are focused on the restoration of a species which was wiped out of 98% of its former range in the lower 48.
My bad, I should have said, "the organization you worked for and are supporting in this discussion".
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
Incidentally, within the reintroduction area livestock owners have always been able to shoot wolves in the act of attacking livestock.
That's news to a bunch of WY farmers that have been told if they shoot a wolf, they will be prosecuted, period.
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
To further clarify, NONE of the compensation funds come from taxpayer $.
My mistake...I had no idea private organizations were paying for ALL the reimbursements. If that is the case, the reimbursement totals seem to be very, very low...just a guess here though. I simply assumed with the $ figure listed the state had to be dumping a bunch of money into it too. Do you know what percentage of reports are "verified"? That seems to be a major issue with many folks.
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
To my knowledge indirect damages are not covered at all.
and THAT just plain sucks.
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
Wolves are gonna kill livestock and no compensation program is going to remove all the costs to livestock producers.
Not if the wolves are managed effectively...that ain't happening now. De-list and some of that problem is alleviated, and everyone else wins: the state gets $ for their coffers, the sportsmen get another opportunity, the wolf is INSURED of continued survival (name one animal in modern times that has been "licensed for sportsmen" that is NOT in better shape because of them).
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
Coyotes, cougars and bears all kill livestock and game too and they ain't putting ranchers or hunters out of business
Yep, coyotes are small enough to be defended against, cougars and bears don't hunt in packs nor are they in great numbers in one area (at least in the area we are discussing). Oh, and all three are managed as game animals, with an open season on coyotes.
-
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
The shame of it is, without the rhetoric and emotions on both sides of the issue, wolves would be easy to manage and would have been delisted long ago. For the record, my personal view is that ranchers should be able to protect their livelihood, hunters should be willing to accept lower game densities to be responsible conservationists (which by my definition includes concern for all species- not just those I like to shoot), and states should have the management authority for wolves.
Thanks for posting this and the rest of your thorough response, as well as the follow-ups.
-
JC- I'm not actually supporting Defenders position, but trying to educate folks on the comp fund as there seems to be much confusion. Defenders is opposing delisting currently, and I support it. Sooner or later it will happen and wolf proponents will simply have to accept that some wolves will be killed.
Since day one of the reintroduction, the 10J rule classified the wolves as experimental, non-essential and has allowed the shooting of wolves in the act of attacking livestock. Its in the federal register. A year or two ago it was relaxed to allow the shooting of wolves merely harassing livestock. So depending when Brian Krebs had problems with his mules, he could have taken lethal action against the wolves. Undoubtedly, such actions would be closely scrutinized to ensure that the rule wasn't being abused.
It does stink for ranchers suffering losses that they don't recover indirect costs. But hey, you can't call up your insurance company and tell them you got in an car accident and please send me a check for $5,000. They are going to send an appraiser to affirm the claim. There better be some damage to your truck!
To put things in perspective, Check out this report from the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics survey.
http://www.peer.org/docs/doj/06_9_5_nass_report.pdf
They survey livestock producers every year or two and summarize the losses to all causes of death. In 2006, WY cattle ranchers reported 500 cows and 3500 calves lost to ALL predators, and 10,500 cows and 27,500 calves lost to all other non-predator causes (respiratory and digestive problems mostly though interestingly 900 cattle and 1200 calves were lost to poisoning and theft!). Numbers for ID and MT are comparable.
To quote the report,
"Coyotes and dogs caused the majority of cattle and calf losses (by predators) accounting for 51.1 percent and 11.5 percent respectively." Wolves weren't even analyzed separately because their relative contribution to predator losses was so small.
Similar reports exist for sheep and predators are generally responsible for about 25% of sheep deaths as I recall. but sheep are born to die so its no surprise predators have a bigger impact.
While I don't have a problem with recreational hunting of predators provided the population can support it, recreational hunting does not reduce livestock depredation because it does not target the offending individuals. That is where Wildlife Services comes in. They provide professional depredation control for livestock producers and have been managing wolves in the northern rockies recovery area since the reintroduction began. So to suggest that wolves are not currently being managed is incorrect. They are being actively and intensively managed where damage occurs...55 were killed by WS in 2006 in WY.
Same goes for coyotes, bears and cougars. Recreational hunting is not protecting livestock as much as the targeted depredation control by WS and some private trappers.
I'm not trying to trivialize the problem wolves cause for livestock producers. While a small percentage of ranchers suffer wolf losses, its often the same producers over and over due to the location of their spread. And for those folks, the financial losses are very real. That's why Defenders came up with the Compensation program. Its not a perfect solution, but better than nothing.
Oh, and before I get called out on it, I realize that livestock producers need to be there to witness wolves killing or harassing their livestock in order to excersize their right to shoot the wolf. But that's why Wildlife Services exists.
One species? Northern Bobwhite quail.
Just being difficult! :biglaugh:
-
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
[QB] JC- I'm not actually supporting Defenders position, but trying to educate folks on the comp fund as there seems to be much confusion. Defenders is opposing delisting currently, and I support it. Sooner or later it will happen and wolf proponents will simply have to accept that some wolves will be killed.
Steve: You really think - you really believe the wolf proponents will accept hunting? REALLY?
:knothead:
As to why I didn't kill the wolves- it was dark. I do not shoot when I cannot see what is in range of any weapon I am using. Such was the case.
I think you need to understand antihunters and how they think a bit more. I have been battling anti-hunters since before CBS produced ' The guns of Autumn'.
In fact my Uncle - I lived with his family after my fathers death- he fell for the CBS lie that the show was about the heritage of hunting in America; and as the President of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs; he made the mistake of trusting their word.
He was a really smart guy; didn't help him from being fooled by lies.
Please Steve- if you really think that the fish and wildlife service can control the wolves- check out the situation in Alaska.
Please..........
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoH9GvEgxwI
-
After sitting through the Montana Tentative Hunting Season sessions in December, February and some local meetings of the 44 held around the state in regard to what I saw as comments from the wolf support groups was just baloney.
In Montana it is stated we have about 570 wolves, with over 45 breeding pairs documented, MT Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) set the threshold at 30 breeding pairs, while the USFS wolf minimum was 15 breeding pairs.
The wolf lovers stepped up to to the microphones and offered that the pack behaviour of the wolf will be severely disrupted by hunters taking the alpha males and females. They said also more study was required before hunting should be allowed, as the wolf was a relative newcomer again to the landscape.
Yes they are here, and they are preying on our elk and deer and muliplying, and I believe there are more wolves out there than is stated by the USFS and FWP. I have seen their tracks and heard their howls from my home outside of Missoula.
In the first place there will be very few wolves killed after the second or third season by hunters. The wolves will evolve to become more noctural and will learn to avoid humans.
Since they are a game animal they will not be able to be hunted from aircraft or snow machines like predators.
The wolves are here to stay, and no I do not like it, and yes I will avail my self of every opportunity to kill one when the season opens this fall.
In Genesis, God told man to go forth and be master of the earth and fields. And we were the masters, until a bunch of nitwits decided we needed to restore the wolf to the environment.
I am guessing these same type of people would like to restore malaria to the environment again to return the true wildness to the landscape.
The reintroduction of the wolf will have long term effects on game animal populations and on the opportunity of hunters to pursue those game animals.
Gary Carvajal
-
Gary: Well 'spoken'. I like the restoring Malaria argument :)
Yeah we need to know the effects of killing the alpha male; and the alpha female; and the delta male; and the delta female; and the first born male of a litter; and the first born female; and the black colored ones versus the white; and the ones that lick their noses most; and ......
Yeah those antis will give right into logic.
yep uh huh
-
I say leave the wolves alone :)
They cause damage, yes, but so does every other predator.
They were once the natural predators in North America before we humans messed things up.
Also, I couldnt kill a wolf. They are too close to my best friend.
-
If your best friend is a dog; and its out here; your very likely to watch the wolves tear it apart alive.
They are more than a regular predator; they are one that excels at what they do.
Please do some reading on this; look at the thread about wolves being delisted. Please.
I say that to you willow bothwell; as Elfking.
-
Ah, grilled wolf steaks and wild rice, me thinks my canine would like it too....
Coming soon to a grille near you, just like a coyote, only bigger, tastes like...big dog
Garo
-
I watched a CNN show with Jeff Corwin escorting CNNs own Anderson Cooper. One trip Cooper took was to the 'successful reintroduction of the wolf in Yellowstone'.
The guy who got this whole thing going was there for interview; and he is estatic that there are dead everythings everywhere; and that bugs are eating the dead and now are not endangered; and how the brush is growing back from where elk over grazed it; and birds are finding more refuge in that; and how the wolves and bears are fighting... and how the reintroduction is working out better than he planned.
I like birds and bugs and all things in the wild; but ... wolves will not stop when the food runs out. They will and are taking more than any preditors share.
Yep I looked at the source of the wolf reintroduction; and I saw everything I detest about those that walk through the woods; and see it as a theatre; a museum; a place where humans should only exist: as observers.
Elk here in Idaho are introduced they say; if the wolves kill them all then nature: will be returned to its natural state.
Well; I am an animal too. I am by nature a preditor. I deserve a place in nature too.
But not to these people that are better than us; that have passed the evolutionary level of needing to kill; and prove it by burning down a rainforest to grow their soy beans in... oH - sorry; I hope I didn't question the authorities intellect......
That though is what we are going to have to do; to call their bluff. In the long run; they will be seen as fools.
But when oh when will we the people ever have control again??? I don't know.
"The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance."
-- Benjamin Franklin
-
Something I've never understood about the wolf re-introduction program;
Back when wolves were commonplace ,massive herds of bison roamed across the Great Plains. The weak,young and old were most likely enough to sustain the wolves.Now,that we're re-introducing the wolves is their also a plan in place to federalize enormous tracts of land in order to re-estblish the buffalo herds so the wolves will have their food sources in place ? If not,than animals who are not neccessarily accustomed to the predation that is going to occur(especially during calving)will have a very negative impact for decades,if not permanently.
This yet another example of a government program that is going to screw up what already exists in as close to harmony as is possible in this day in age.
Well done,Washington D.C.. Can't wait to see what you can do with my healthcare. :)
-
Aaron,
There is a movement to create precisely what you describe as an idea of enormous tracts of land, being at least at this point only a concept in the twinkling of the eyes of the crowd that believes man is the interloper.
The same crowd that hails the wolf believes the entire northern rockies ecosystem---read from central Wyoming to central Alberta and British Columbia should be devoid of all homosapiens, except of course those who study the reclaimed new wilderness.
This would allow the wolf and all large predators to become once again symbiotic with nature and once again a natural balance is achieved or some baloney like that.
If this was 9500 years ago, after the last ice age, the wolf lovers like Willow would be scavanged by those they profess to love. They also would have been cast out from the tribe...the very advancement of civilization which they profess to abhor allows them the time and protection to even ponder such mindless thoughts.
The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, it however stops short of guaranteeing that speech is rational.
Garo
-
There is a perception by some of these pro-wolf people; that the wolf was sacred to the indians.
Indians had reverence for ALL animals; each animal had a purpose and was part of natures plans.
But as for the wolf being sacred; the indians used to use wolf skins to wear; so they could crawl up to herds of buffalo - which did not fear a wolves when the buffalo were in a herd.
The pro wolf people should have to ask themselves how those indians got the wolf skins...... car kills maybe??
-
Holy crap...what's the name of the movement and who's pushing it ?
-
Aaron,
I don't remember the name but it is real, something like: Alliance to Restore the Rockies.
Garo
-
I feel like I should be wrapping my head in tin foil and peering out the window searching for black helicopters. Garo was right...free speech doesn't guarantee rational speech and recently this discussion is living proof. Its a simple thing to educate oneself in this day and age. Learning from ignorant peers tho can't remember the name of something but know its true is not educating oneself.
Yellowstone to Yukon is one conservation effort attempting to bring a landscape perspective to conserving wilderness. Find somewhere on their site where it says their goal is to eliminate humans. I couldn't.
http://www.y2y.net/Default.aspx?cid=6&lang=1
A 2 second google search reveals these sites below, which I have not reviewed. Selectively ignoring information that does not support your position is no better than what you accuse your "opponents" of doing. And if you were to take the time to understand where your "opponents" are coming from, rather than writing them off as a bunch of wacko's who lack your expansive knowledge of the natural world, you might find you have a lot more in common with them than you think.
http://www.southernrockies.org/
http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/about/index.html
-
So much venom, so little time.
-
there are lots of helecopters for sale; and a lot in private usage. If a person bought a helecopter; could you tell me what law prevents them: from painting it black?
When the military sells helecopters to the public or to other governmental agencies; they paint the old markings over with paint.
Black covers really well.
There are black helecopters.
As far as y2y- the use of the word 'conservation' is pretty conceited.
Conservation in regards to the wild; was defined by a bowhunter- Aldo Leopold ; known as the 'father of conservation'. He said conservation is: " the wise use of our natural resources".
Let me sharpen my sword - where in the Y2Y plan is there ANY wise use of a resource?
The southern rockies organization seems like a good one; although unless there are laws; and laws that are enforced: concerning the use of off road vehicles; making more roadless areas... is useless.
Sounds charming; but I doubt anyone at full throttle has any inclination of making the efforts count.
I do like the theme of the organization though; I hope they succeed with their goals.
The wildrockies alliance is a crock of lies. If you want wolves all over join this one !!
I am seeing that the complete ignoring of the FACT there were wolves in Idaho-before the 'reintroduction': is colostrum for the pro-wolf groups.
I do not apprecitate your inference to what I know and don't know; with the weight of your sword swing being: that I do not know diddly.
I have talked with biologists here that verified the presence of wolves here in Idaho BEFORE the 'reintroduction'; and if the Y2Y is accurate with the Pluie study; then how can anyone claiming to be smarter than a donut think that wolves were NOT here?
Explain that.
And just because a person has attended schools; and has a job as a wildlife biologist does not make them incapable of being a wacko.
Right ?
-
Thought this thread would die out, but I guess I was wrong. With the evidence showing that the wolf population in the discussed region is increasing and the effect on the wildlife population is also increasing, sooner or later population control needs to happen. In the current climate that we live in, the wolf population will need to be controlled. Hopefully the wildlife biologist will come up with an appropriate plan to do that. I would assume that they are the best qualified to that, even if they may have another agenda. They have been reintroduced (introduced if you like, it's all the same), now we have to deal with it. I hope we don't eradicate them, as I said before. If the population was able to maintained at exactly the level it is now with hunting being allowed, would that be something that everyone could live with even it isn't the ideal solution for everyone? And Walt, if you read this, can we bury the hatchet?
-
pdk25
I don't think you understand; the biologists say that the elk here are introduced; that they are plains animals. Not mountain animals; so if the wolves kill them all it will only mean that things have returned to a biological normal.
In Alaska; after Denali Park with the largest population of moose in north america; had every single calf moose killed by wolves; Alaska got mad. They started killing wolves; the federal government be da*ned. Yet still there are too many wolves.
The anti-hunters are happy; because if the wolves kill off everything we hunt; we can no longer hunt.
The biologists originally were hired and paid for by hunters. They re-established and kept hardy the animals that hunters hunted; and we hunters paid their bills required to do it.
But now; the treasure is in pleasing the cheap who6es of the anti-hunting crowd. As William Shatner - who was one of the original members of the 'Fred Bear Sportsmans Club' said: ' I stopped hunting and sided with the antihunters; when the harvest of good looking women was easy- that was way more fun than hunting'.
The governor of Idaho let the wolves be introduced; and then he went to washington and is now the secretary of the interior; and is being groomed for president ( he WAS the only person left in a 'safe place'; when Bush gave his final speach; and all congress was present in one place).
Butch Otter; our present Governor was fined for damaging the Boise river in Star Idaho; land sales covered the cost of the violation; so he did it again; and was fined even more. He went to Washington and was put in charge of what to do with the fine money he had paid.
We are in a depression. WE got here by thinking the government is out to do good for us. With wolves or with the price of gas; the cost of living; the mortgage crisis- we are being considered the property of the state.
Somewhere- sometime we have to stand up to it.
But first we have to see the little men behind the curtains.
In the case of wolves; we are paying our government to destroy our game populations.
Of course; the wolf existed where there are towns and cities; as did the grizzly bear. I would like to see a reintroduction of grizzlies in Washington DC.
The wolf hunts that are planned will in no way effect the population enough. Its of course; not intended to.
-
I confess that I don't know how effective hunting will be. Hopefully someone smarter than I am can come up with a solution to curb the population growth. I know this makes some people angry, but I don't want them eradicated. Just controlled. I just don't know how to do it. Hunting seems like a good first step. It just seems like this is a very emotional topic that has us at each other's throats when we should be getting along and planning hunts with each other.
-
I am hunting; I have a bear bait out; and will check it tomorrow :)
I am also planning to hunt with a couple different trad gangers this fall for elk. :)
and pdk25 - your smart enough. not all defenses exclude offensive actions....
-
I find it amusing that someone from across the continent claims to be more of an authority on what is going on in the west than those who who live here.
And you know, stick and stones may break my bones...blah blah blah....
When the season opens, yes I will try to kill a wolf, not because it is a wolf, because I can.
And yeah to me those return to nature folks are nutjobs.
Garo
-
Have you read Aldo Leopold's "Thinking like a mountain" essay? You might find his opinion on wolves interesting. I think the Father of Wildlife Management would have whole-heartedly supported wolf restoration in the rockies...
-
I don't believe that Leopold; who was a conservationist; a person interested in biodiversity: would stick his intellect so far up his rear- that he would allow one species to consume others.
He would want controls; and real controls; and he did hunt; and he did see the role we as hunters can participate in legitimately.
There are no hunters in Yellowstone; but perhaps if there had been hunters ( or are there men hired to shoot elk up to their bellies in snow- and called 'professional hunters' - in that it is their 'business'; not their appeal to a 'hideous instinct').
If there were hunters in yellowstone; they would have kept things; including wolves in balance.
If you missed that concept; then perhaps you need to re-think it.
For those that don't get 10 minute delivery of books from Amazon; the book referred to is about how only mountains can listen objectively to the howl of a wolf; for they have been there long enough to see the eb and flow of things; and how the howl of a wolf fits in.
Well Steve; I have no intentions of living as long as a mountain. I am not going to enjoy watching the wolves kill off all the animals as I am now; and watch how cruel and indescriminate the wild can be; and then watch the wolf die off and come back: when there is enough to gorge itself to death again.
I am only dancing on this earth for a short while; and I want my 'dance' to include elk hunting and deer hunting; and enjoy the break between the cyclic overpopulation of wolves.
It may or may not interest you in knowing that my father grew up in Hagerstown Maryland; and was born on the grounds of the Maryland school for the blind; where is father grew up and his uncle Warren Bledsoe grew up.
And there; my father read books; books- which I read as a child; books like Earnest Thompson Setons. Including the story about 'Lobo- king of Carrumpaw'. In that story a wolf doing what wolves do now; was hunted; and poisons set out; and traps; and he was only captured after his beloved Blanca (the Alpha female) was captured - then he gave up his life- and his kingdom.
While THAT WAS JUST A STORY it is true that wolves were persecuted; and we are seeing now why. People have put out poisons. One conviction for that included poisons put out for wolves by a man - that were within two arrow flings of my cabin.
I think it is ugly to find my canine friend- and pointing dog- Odin-- choking to death in a snare set for wolves. (my father shared his books by ~Albert Payson Terhune~ - do look up those books Steve). This situation was started with a decision to lie to the people; and reintroduce wolves over any objection by the people.
But THERE WERE WOLVES HERE BEFORE THE 'REINTRODUCTION' !!!!!!!!!!!!
Now this mess is here; and it was all about biologists being wrong. And biologists doing things without the consent of the people: against what we adhere to doing in this country!!
Again you mentioned Aldo Leopold and as the text books put it:
Why is Leopold considered such an important figure in the history of environmental conservation?
1) He introduced the concepts of philosophy and ethics into conservation.
2) He espoused that humans were a part of nature not its adversary.
3) He suggested that humans needed to develop a land ethic, a basic respect for plants, animals, and resources in order to live in harmony with our natural world.
4) Although the term biodiversity was not used in his time, Leopold understood and promoted the concept that all organisms have a role in an ecosystem.
Now Steve: ask yourself about how the wolf 'reintroduction' fills the 4 issues above?
#1 Is it ethical to without the support of the people effected- to have brought MORE wolves into this ecosystem? Is the end result- the hatred of the wolf - a result of a poorly thought out ethical decision? I know so !!
#2. How do humans fit into the Yellowstone plan? If it is to be a model of how nature works; what about the humans that used to live there?
#3. How is an overpopulation of wolves to be considered 'harmony' does this thread sound harmony to you? Do the upset people sound like 'harmony' to you?
#4. We had wolves here Steve; things were in harmony. We liked the sound of the howl of a wolf. I am an organism; and I have rights too; and you have forsaken that; and forgotten the role of the hunter in all this; especially those hunters that hunt in a way as 'old as the mountains'.
for shame
-
Originally posted by Steve Kendrot:
Have you read Aldo Leopold's "Thinking like a mountain" essay? You might find his opinion on wolves interesting. I think the Father of Wildlife Management would have whole-heartedly supported wolf restoration in the rockies...
So,refering back to my earlier post...what do you figure Leopold would've had these wolves eat ? They don't have the large herds of caribou like in the Yukon or Alaska,the buffalo are gone.What's that leave ?
-
Well, Aaron, that only leaves elk, and deer, and antelope and bighorns and angus and herefords and domestic sheep, and dogs and cats, and bear cubs, and don't forget moose and mountain goats.
The back to nature folks conveniently forget it was the hunter that started the conservation movement....Theodore Roosevelt, and his ilk, and so forth. The granola crowd came long after that.
Once the great herds of buffalo and other game was gone, the wolf had nothing to eat except the cattle and sheep and other livestock of the settlers. Ergo, the wholesale effort on predator eradication. Willow and his ancestral pals all applauded the predator eradication, because it made it safe to have Pomeranians.
Again once the season opens, I will make every effort to eradicate one wolf, because I can and will, so there.
Garo
-
Ok this one has run it's course.