Wolves soon to be huntable in MT?

[IB]

     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

 

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?

[Steve Kendrot]

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.

[IB]

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.

[vermonster13]

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.

[Steve Kendrot]

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.

[vermonster13]

I don't need to look, we both know what camp donates the biggest amount.

[vermonster13]

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

[Steve Kendrot]

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.

[Steve Kendrot]

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

[vermonster13]

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?

[JC]

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.

[Steve Kendrot]

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.

[vermonster13]

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.

[IB]

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.

 

 "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?

[Steve Kendrot]

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...

[vermonster13]

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.

[Mike Orton]

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/

Today's message from State of Idaho, Dept of Fish and Game re: the wuffy situation

[Brian Krebs]

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.

[JC]

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.

[eidsvolling]

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.