Wolves soon to be huntable in MT?

[Barney]

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.        

How do you reintroduce something that was already here?  

[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.

[IB]

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.

[JC]

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.

[eidsvolling]

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?

[tomh]

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.

[eidsvolling]

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.

[JC]

"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.

[IB]

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

[Brian Krebs]

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    
  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.  :(

[Steve Kendrot]

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.

[Mark U]

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.

[laddy]

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.

[IB]

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.

[JC]

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.

[tomh]

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.

[vermonster13]

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.

[vermonster13]

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.

[JC]

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.

[Steve Kendrot]

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.