Posted on 02/07/2004 10:59:48 AM PST by Delphinium
By Chuck Adams
American Hunter Magazine (NRA – National Rifle Association member publication)
Montana resident Geri Ball stood with her fists on her hips and a knot in the pit of her stomach. At her feet were the remains of her prize female llama, entrails and unborn baby scattered across the animal’s pen. This 850-pound pregnant pet had been eaten alive by wolves from northwestern Montana’s Nine-Mile Pack. The mother llama’s screams of pain and fear had sliced through the night…but too late to save the mortally wounded animal.
Hunting outfitter Bill Hoppe glassed a sweeping vista just north of Yellowstone National Park, his expert eyes searching for elk that have traditionally thrived in Montana Hunting Districts 313 and 317. The only tracks in the fresh snow were those of gray wolves. Hoppe also had a knot in his gut. Nonresident hunting clients were due to arrive tomorrow, and there were no elk to be found.
On the Little North Fork of Idaho’s Clearwater River, Bror Borjesson watched helplessly in his flashlight beam as members of the Marble Mountain wolf pack attacked four horses in his hunting camp at 1:30 a.m. Sheena, his pregnant Appaloosa mare, panicked and flipped on the tether rope securely knotted to his horse trailer. Her spine snapped with a sickening crunch.
Bullet, a three-year-old gelding, broke his tether rope and galloped away with Syringa, another pregnant mare. The wolves were close behind, slashing at the horses’ heels. The man never saw his prize pair again, and Sheena had to be put down.
< br>
A cowboy on the Diamond G Cattle Ranch in Wyoming’s Dunoir Valley climbed off his horse and crouched beside a mutilated beef calf. Big, doglike tracks littered the area around the carcass. The young animal’s entrails were scattered, the anus ripped out, the hips partly gnawed away. It was a classic wolf kill.
All of these incidents and hundreds more like them have occurred in the West’s Tri-State area during the past two years alone. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are under siege by terrorists…and these terrorists are not from the Middle East. Instead, they were deliberately introduced to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996 with the blessing of the Clinton Administration.
The Feds can’t say they weren’t warned what might happen. Carl Niemeyer was a member of the federal team that darted and transplanted the original 66 wolves from Alberta and British Columbia, Canada. He says Canadian trappers helping with this project cautioned that fully protected wolves would multiply like hamsters in their new, game-rich environment, spreading like wildfire and killing sheep, cattle, elk, and deer by the thousands.
"Everything those Canadian trappers told me has come true," says Niemeyer. He should know. He has been with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf program in Idaho since the beginning -- a state where burgeoning wolf numbers now exceed the fondest hopes of wolf lovers around the country.
The gray wolf has never been endangered in North America. Healthy populations continue to thrive throughout Canada and Alaska. But wolves vanished from the lower 48 states in the early 1930’s, a result of expanding human population and government-directed eradication programs.
In the late 1960’s and early ‘70’s, the Environmental Movement hit America. Spurred by guilt and sentimentality over man’s supposed exploitation of the natural world, the U.S. government made major moves. One was the Marine Mammal Protection Act of l972, which banned (among other things) the import of legally hunted polar bears from Canada. Another was the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As President Richard M. Nixon signed this Act into law, he declared, "The notion that the only good predator is a dead one is no longer acceptable."
The gray wolf was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1974, the first species of many including controversial creatures like the spotted owl. Livestock and hunting interests opposed wolf reintroduction to the West, and the wheels of government turned slowly amid a flurry of lobbying efforts. Then, in the late 1970’s and early ‘80’s, federal biologists discovered that now fully protected wolves were beginning to filter south into Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, and other states bordering Canada. In 1986, the first wolf den was discovered in Montana along the west edge of Glacier National Park.
Thrilled with the notion of new species to manage, federal biologists pushed for wolf reintroduction on a "non-essential, experimental" basis in central Idaho and Yellowstone Park. After five years of study, a new federal wolf bureaucracy gained momentum. The liberal Clinton Administration took control in Washington, and by the end of William Jefferson Clinton’s first term, more than five dozen collared Canadian gray wolves were romping about federal wildlands in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Wolf recovery goals for the new program called for 30 or more breeding pairs in the Tri-State area over a period of three successive years—10 each in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. A "breeding pair" was defined as "an adult male and female wolf raising 2 or more pups until December 3l."
Wolves were not the only ones whining and howling in the mid-1990s. Hunters, ranchers, and level-headed nature lovers complained about the idiocy of introducing a vicious, indiscriminate killer among populations of carefully managed elk, deer, mountain sheep, moose, and livestock. Some biologists predicted that game management would fly out the window, canceling many millions of dollars and many decades of concentrated effort from American hunters to bring game populations back to healthy, manageable levels.
Equally frustrating to some was the very notion of introducing wolves to a new area when the species was doing so well on other parts of the continent. One Montana game warden -- who does not wish to be named for fear of losing his job -- recently used the following analogy.
"If you take a few zebra from Africa and transplant them in Idaho, then ‘Idaho zebra’ are certainly going to be labeled endangered. But zebra are not endangered at all."
Kyran Kunkel, scientific researcher for the Turner Endangered Species Fund, confirms the bleak prospects for adding gray wolves to the wildlife mix. Kunkel’s studies show that after reintroduction of wolves, deer and elk numbers decline and so does hunter success. Cougars starve, wolves kill each other, and wolf reproduction rates go down. Deer and elk populations grow slowly, wolf numbers increase, and the whole vicious cycle repeats itself
"We shouldn’t kid ourselves and think we can manage predator and prey for stable populations," Kunkel concludes.
In July of 2002, Idaho Fish and Game Commissioners heard similar dire predictions from three noted wolf scientists. These experts testified that elk populations in that state would suffer severe decline, followed by a "bouncing ball effect" as wolves died off or relocated, elk herds rebounded, and wolves repopulated again.
"This is all very unsettling," one attendee commented after the hearing. "The best efforts of hunters, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and other pro-elk groups may be in shambles."
Although wolves impact deer, wild sheep, and moose, the main concern of hunters and game biologists centers on elk. Numerous studies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that 80 to 90 percent of game killed by wolves in the Tri-State area are elk.
In 2002, scientist Tom Bergerud from B.C., Canada confirmed the worst fears of sportsmen in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
"I predict a major elk decline," Bergerud said. "I’ve watched herd after herd of caribou go extinct across Canada." He went on to explain that wolves deplete one prey population, and then move into another area.
"Wolves do not self regulate," Bergerud explained. "You have to have management."
Ranchers whose livelihoods depend on cattle or sheep are also worried, despite U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studies that say depredations on livestock are much lower than originally predicted. The Service reports that 20 cattle, 37 sheep, and 4 domestic dogs were the only confirmed wolf kills in Wyoming in 2001. Nineteen sheep were also recorded as "probable" wolf predations.
Cattle and sheep ranchers snort at such a report. The key word in USFWS studies is "confirmed." Unless a wolf is actually caught in the act of killing livestock, it is nearly impossible to "confirm" the kill. In the steep and rugged West, most wolf kills are never found, let alone identified.
Federal wildlife agents have tried many wolf-deterrence methods including electronic shock collars, electric fences, rubber bullets, shells with exploding firecrackers, and speakers broadcasting loud noises to scare wolves away from livestock. Wolves keep on killing cattle and sheep. These are intelligent, adaptable predators.
Until recently, a rancher had to receive a "shoot to kill" document from the Feds just to dispose of a problem wolf. By the time paperwork was approved and processed, the predator was long gone. Even shining a spotlight or shooting a gun in the air was considered illegal "wolf harassment."
Now, under the new "threatened" status recently implemented by USFWS, wolves can be shot by ranchers in the Tri-State area if caught in the act of killing horses, mules, cattle, sheep, domestic dogs, or sheep-protecting llamas. This almost never happens. Wolves attack at night, then vanish.
Some livestock growers were open-minded when wolves first appeared in their areas. Dairy farmer Buddy Keranen from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula says his family "was excited when we could hear wolves howling."
But wolves are now so common on the Keranen farm that they boldly walk through the calving pens and kill cattle at will.
"They don’t seem to have a fear of man," Keranen says.
Why should they? Wolves have been coddled and buffered from the wrath of man since they first appeared below the Canadian border.
Frustration has prompted a few wolf opponents to take matters in their own hands. Electronic tracking collars have been found in Michigan’s UP and the West’s Tri-State areas, cut from dead wolves that have mysteriously disappeared. The philosophy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is commonly laughed about at local bars in wolf country.
But federal penalties for killing an endangered species are severe -- up to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine. A rancher convicted of illegally shooting a wolf might also lose his livestock lease on government land.
Special Agents patrol backcountry areas in the West on horseback to curb wolf killing, mail educational literature about wolves to hunters, and encourage sportsmen to turn in those who illegally shoot wolves. Vigilante wolf control is risky business.
Western ranchers sourly point out that the USFWS has 10 hotlines to report illegally killed wolves, but only 3 phone numbers to report livestock killed by wolves. It’s clear where federal priorities lie.
The federal government does not pay for livestock taken down by wolves -- another bone of contention with cattle and sheep ranchers. The Defenders of Wildlife does offer financial relief if wolf predation can be proven, but that’s seldom easy to do. This well-heeled anti-hunting group has compensated ranchers to the tune of more than $200,000 since wolves began raising havoc half a dozen years ago.
"I don’t say I want every wolf killed," says Geri Ball, the Montana woman whose pregnant pet llama was massacred by the Nine-Mile pack. "But we’ve had enough. Our neighbors Gerald and Bonnie Gilbert raise sheep, and the wolves run back and forth between our properties. They kill a sheep today, and kill a llama tomorrow."
Ball says the main problem is artificial protection of wolves. They aren’t scared of people.
"Just last week, a guy was frying bacon in his camper near here. He looked out and there were three wolves right beside the vehicle. They were hungry, and they smelled that bacon.
"A friend of mine just had two calves killed by wolves inside her barn," Ball continued. "The USFWS denied the claim, because nobody actually saw the wolves do it in the middle of the night. This problem is a lot bigger than biologists admit."
Western sheep rancher Aggie Brailsford sums it up sarcastically. "Isn’t it a wonderful concept to have this huge national zoo? I don’t know whether they have the concept that we do of a lamb with its back end ripped out and being eaten alive."
Determining levels of wolf predation on elk and other big game is not an exact science, either. The remote reaches of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming make finding most wolf kills impossible. And after a week or two, who can tell what killed that stinking pile of hide and bones?
There is serious disagreement among "experts" about the effects of wolf predation on elk, deer, and other prey species.
Joe Fontaine, Assistant Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, downplays the negative impact of wolves.
"Wolf populations are having no significant effect on big game populations," this Montana-based biologist says. "There may be pockets where wolves are having an effect on wildlife, but there’s also a drought going on in the West that’s having a major effect.
"A whole host of variables come to bear on wildlife population size. Take Yellowstone Park. You’ve got grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lions, and wolves. Who are you going to blame for dead elk?"
Southern Montana outfitter Bill Hoppe says he knows who’s to blame. After intensively flying a 20-mile radius in his Super Cub airplane four separate times in October and November of 2002, he counted only 156 elk -- by far the worst he’d ever seen. There have been cougars, grizzlies, and black bears in Hoppe’s hunting area just north of Yellowstone Park since he began outfitting years ago. Only after wolves showed up did elk populations begin to nosedive.
In a recent address to the Montana Senate and House of Representatives, Hoppe invited members to visit his area "to see how the ecosystem north of Yellowstone Park has been, for all practical purposes, sterilized of wildlife."
Chris Smith, Chief of Staff for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, confirmed Hoppe’s observations in a memo written on October 11, 2002.
"Bill Hoppe and other outfitters who hunt in southern HD (Hunting District) 317 and HD 313 have reported seeing fewer and fewer elk in recent years. Those observations do not conflict with our data or understanding of the situation. Given the reintroduction of wolves in the Yellowstone area, it is likely that resident elk numbers…have declined either due to impacts of predation or due to displacement of animals…to avoid areas with resident wolf packs. The observations reported to us by outfitters and hunters make sense."
Anecdotal alarms about declining game in wolf country could fill a library. Dwight Schuh, long-time resident of Nampa, Idaho and editor of the country’s largest bowhunting magazine, says that hunter and outfitter complaints about lack of elk in central Idaho are sharply on the rise. For example, the Chamberlain Basin in the Frank Church-River Of No Return Wilderness Area has always been densely populated with elk…until now. Outfitters see very few bulls anymore, and one said he "quit guiding because elk hunting has become so poor."
Robert Fanning, Jr. owns a horse ranch 25 miles north of Yellowstone Park. Fanning is Chairman and Founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc., a political action group with nearly 4,000 members from southern Montana. He is furious about the local depletion of wildlife, and he bluntly blames stupidity and greed on a grand scale.
"Wolf recovery is big business for biologists," Fanning recently wrote. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has created a huge bureaucracy originally formed to introduce 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone Park, but now expanded to put wolves in any rural area in America where there is an agricultural or hunting culture. If you can’t make money in spotted owls, then get into wolves, the dot.com job for biologists."
There is no question that wolf reintroduction is expensive. Official documents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reveal that about $17 million has been spent on wolf restoration, management, recovery, and delisting procedures between 1973 and 2003. Current federal wolf expenses in the Tri-State area alone are about $1.4 million per year. The Service estimates there are now 660 wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming combined. That means U.S. taxpayers have paid $25,757.00 for each wolf in this program. Not to mention countless dollars lost by hunting outfitters and ranchers of cattle and sheep.
A substantial portion of this money has been spent by the USFWS on voluminous federal wolf studies, day to day monitoring of individual wolf packs, attempts to control problem wolves, public relations with those who love and those who hate wolves, and legal fees to defend the wolf program.
Only 20-percent of total wolf allocations has been spent by the National Park Service, but the NPS has reaped big benefits. With elk numbers unnaturally high in Yellowstone Park due to improved habitat from wildfires and no human hunting at all, officials seem pleased to have wolves killing elk. They also believe that wolf sightings improve the tourist trade. For example, the Druid Peak wolf pack in Yellowstone’s Lamar Valley has denned close to the main road since 1997. Park officials estimate that 12,000 people see Lamar Valley wolves each year. For the casual visitor without a love of elk or a vested interest in livestock, spotting a wolf is a thrill.
Even if you believe the price tag is ridiculously high, the federal wolf bureaucracy has been successful in repopulating wolves. Wolf recovery goals mandated in the early 1990’s by the Clinton Administration for the Western District Population Segment (DPS) were met in 2000, 2001, and 2002. The Western DPS includes Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
The Eastern DPS has also exceeded federal goals, with some 2,445 wolves in Minnesota, 373 in Wisconsin, and 278 in Michigan. For this reason, wolves were reclassified by the USFWS in both areas from "endangered" to "threatened" in March of 2003.
Craig Manson, Assistant Interior Secretary of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, says that, "essentially, the gray wolf is recovered."
This could be an understatement. States not even in the recovery program are now coping with its effects. Wolves have recently strayed into Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Most have been killed or transported back where they came from at taxpayer expense. Livestock growers and hunters in states bordering the Tri-State area are in a quandary about what to do.
If wolves retain their "threatened" status very long, they will surely expand into surrounding eco-systems with full protection from the federal government.
Utah is a case in point. Hunters in the Beehive State have spent $3 million purchasing elk habitat in the Book Cliffs region. Biologists estimate that 20 wolves in the Book Cliffs would kill up to 400 elk and deer each year.
Don Peay, Director of the Utah-based Sportsmen For Fish and Wildlife, is concerned about the Book Cliffs. "Throw in a few wolf litters," he worries, "and in four years you’re out of elk."
With wolf recovery goals met in record time, the USFWS now wants to delist the gray wolf and turn management over to individual states. This is a bombshell in and of itself.
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are now caught in a wolf trap. Bordering states like Utah risk the same. Delisting the gray wolf would allow the Tri-States and any others with wolves to manage these canines like other species, with possible hunting seasons and relaxed rules for killing problem wolves by the general public.
But if states do submit acceptable management plans to keep wolves stable without unnatural protection and overpopulation, they suddenly find themselves footing the bill for destructive animals they never wanted. It’s a Catch 22.
The Tri-States are pressing for funds from the federal government to help them manage wolves. Each state will probably be required to spend $300,000 to $400,000 per year to keep wolves in check. Financial help from the Feds is iffy at this point.
Acting Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Tom Thorne is resigned to reality. He says it’s crucial to get wolves delisted soon to control negative effects on ranchers and hunters.
"The only way we can mitigate those effects is for us to be in charge of management of wolves," Thorne says. "The alternative is huge impacts to livestock and big game."
Game and Fish Commissioner M. Hale Kreycik of Douglas, Wyoming summed up the way most Tri-State game officials feel.
"My interest is in trying to get control as fast as we can so we’re controlling 300 wolves instead of 3,000," Kreycik explained.
Senator Larry Craig from Idaho echoes these sentiments.
"Idaho did not ask for, nor did we want, these wolf populations. However, they are here to stay. Now residents and state and federal governments need to work together to manage wolves in a manner that balances interests of…other wildlife populations, and the financial impacts on ranchers, outfitters, and the State of Idaho. Until we do, Westerners and their livelihoods will join elk, sheep, and livestock as prey in the eyes of the gray wolf."
Caught between a rock and a hard place, all three states submitted wolf management plans to the USFWS in the summer of 2003. All plans call for public hunting of surplus wolves to keep populations near original federal goals. Wyoming’s plan is the most controversial, with a "dual status" provision that would place wolves in most parts of the Cowboy State in the same "predator" category as coyotes and skunks. Wolves could be shot by anyone at any time without a hunting license. Near Yellowstone Park, Wyoming wolves would have a "trophy" status governed by state hunting seasons and licenses.
Wyoming’s approach has inflamed anti-hunting groups, and will probably meet resistance within the USFWS.
Now Tri-State wolf management plans are subject to "peer review" by a panel of USFWS wolf experts. According to federal rules, all three plans must be accepted at the same time before the gray wolf can be delisted. It’s all or nothing.
If the USFWS agrees with all three plans, or if plans can be successfully modified to protect current wolf population levels forever, a Proposal To Delist will be published in the Federal Register for public scrutiny. This could happen as soon as early 2004. From there, it’s up to a few top federal officials to approve or deny final delisting.
Delisting the gray wolf could occur as early as 2005. But there will certainly be legal challenges. Eco-extremists have too many sleek, well-fed lawyers on their payrolls to expect anything else.
Defenders of Wildlife is one such group. DOW hosts a "Wolf Awareness Week" each October, and members are livid over proposed delisting.
DOW President Rodger Schlickeisen says "Handing wolf management over to the states right now is a bad idea…because several key state governments seem caught up in the reflexive hatred of some of the most strident of anti-wolf voices."
Brian Vincent, Program Coordinator for the anti-hunting Animal Protection Institute, calls Tri-State delisting plans "a collective war on wolves." Vincent views hunters, loggers, and ranchers as habitat invaders -- not wolves.
Other pro-wolf groups want full wolf recovery in every part of the lower U.S.
"The Fish and Wildlife Service has an obligation under the Endangered Species Act to recover wolves in a significant portion of their range," says Jamie Rappaport Clark, Senior Vice President For Conservation Programs at the National Wildlife Federation. Groups like the NWF say they want large wolf populations in the Pacific Northwest, northern California, Maine, and all other areas with big game and good habitat.
The USFWS does not agree. With liberals gone from the White House, the political climate is more conducive to limited wolf proliferation.
"We’ve met requirements imposed on us by the Clinton Administration," Joe Fontaine with the USFWS says. "It’s time to delist."
Ron Refsnider, USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the Midwest, seconds these sentiments.
"The Endangered Species Act doesn’t direct us to recover species across their historic range. We don’t have any plan to expand our wolf recovery programs, and we don’t think that’s required."
Some westerners are still demanding that the wolf simply go away. The Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition is presently raising money to file a class-action lawsuit forcing the federal government to eradicate wolves from Idaho altogether.
Nina Fascione, VP of Species Conservation for the Defenders Of Wildlife, hints at possible lawsuits by DOW and similar groups. "I don’t see delisting happening all that smoothly," Fascione recently said.
Legal action by anyone might slow the wolf delisting process. Chris Smith, Chief of Staff for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, recently attended a USFWS presentation on delisting the gray wolf.
"This will be tied up in political and legal knots for years to come," Smith predicted.
Ed Bangs, USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the Northern Rocky Mountains, sounds a more positive note.
"There will be lawsuits," Bangs told me. "We’ve been sued on this from every perspective you can think of. But we’ve managed to prevail in all those cases. If we have good biology and we follow the law, even if somebody sues us, we’re okay.
"Wolf recovery has been an amazing success story," Bangs continued. "When I came to Montana in 1988, there were 19 wolves in the West -- all in Glacier National Park. Now we have 600 to 700 scattered across the three western states. Biologically, wolves are recovered. Bureaucratically, we must complete the circle by delisting and turning wolf management over to the states. If it weren’t for sportsmen and state fish and game agencies that really did the bulk of deer and elk recovery in this nation, wolf recovery would never have been possible.
"I believe the next big leap will happen under state management. Within the next five years, I believe American hunters will be able to legally bag a wolf in the West."
Nobody knows where delisting might lead, but one thing is certain. The wolf genie is out of the bottle, and it isn’t going back in. Western residents will be coping with gray wolves from now on, and they’ll have to make the best of what many see as a very bad situation.
Cage an animal and that's what you get. They don't do this when they're free.
You don’t need to mention the “bouncing ball effect”. When you claim that wolves will kill everything in site, wiping out herds completely etc, you are automatically denying the “bouncing ball effect” that D Rider said was “the natural cycle”. But it is easy enough for you to clear this up. Do you believe in the “bouncing ball effect”?
Fires are natural and they bring about positive results. We’ve been having fires for eons.
”If you were seeing what we are you might be too.”(hysterical)
No I wouldn’t. I think the hysteria comes with the extremism. Just as a lack of perspective so often comes with extremism.
”Sunsong , Its all in who you believe for your source.”
Sources matter. That’s why I have repeatedly asked you for info from reputable sources, specifically National Review and the Washington Times. You have never provided any. What you do provide is anti-wolf propaganda, from sources that I do not think are sound. For instance, your “sources” say that wolves kill for sport and leave carcasses laying around and at the same time your "sources" say that wolves eat every bit of their kill and so ranchers can’t get reimbursement money because nothing is left. Even 8th grade mediocre thinkers can see that something is amiss with that kind of reporting :-)
”I personally don’t trust left wing organizations like Ted Turner, or the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, or the Sierra Club, etc, etc,”
I have never provided any articles from any of those sources. It is you and dmzTahoe who presented articles that quoted from Ted Turner’s Endangered Species Fund. Are you saying now that the NRA article is not to be believed? :-) But perhaps, and I say only perhaps, you will now be more understanding of my lack of trust for your sources. The article I linked to was written by:
Douglas W. Smith
Yellowstone Wolf Project Leader
Yellowstone Center for Resources
P.O. Box 168
Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190
doug_smith@nps.gov
I think his views are relevant and his article looks factual. He provides his sources. What, specificlly, do you disagree with in his article? Or what, specifically, do you find untrustworthy?
”Do you realize that much of the money that they raise with the propaganda you are have fallin for goes to defeat the president, and other Republicans?
I find your continued assumptions about me revealing as to your character. You have no idea if I have ever read, heard, listened to or been told of any propaganda from the left wing sources you mentioned. You have absolutely no idea and yet you are spreading false accusations anyway. I saw a post of yours on a thread about Kerry having killed people in Nam and you made a point of saying that you would not spread that info until you knew whether it was true. It’s too bad that you don’t apply that principle more universally in your life. You sure have spread a lot of false info about me.
There is another agenda;
There are a lot of agendas. None of which bring me to a level of hysteria.
”As University of Wyoming geography professor James Thompson (1993:165) recently noted, “wolf recovery is [only] a ‘stalking horse’ for the larger issue of land use change.” Even environmentalists have admitted that “on the deepest level the issue of…wolf recovery is not about wolves. [Instead] it is about control of the west” (Askins 1993:5). Simply put, environmental-ists are using wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act to run ranchers out of the country and to thwart multiple use of public lands. It is also a way for animal-rights and anti-hunting groups to ban all hunting and use of wildlife.
I have already told you that I am not worried about this far left agenda. I find the extreme right’s hysteria with it to be a sign of paranoia.
”Why do agenda driven scientists zealously committed to ending ranching,hunting and Western private property rights dictate to Mt., Id.,& Wy. the ratio of wolves to prey that we are forced to live with?”
Government has the power to dictate. That’s reality. Why do legislatures dictate the speed that we can drive cars? Why do legislatures dictate to us what different areas of land are “zoned” as?
”The link to the "Wildlands Project" found below indicates that wolves are the biological weapon of choice used by extremists to convert social theory into political practice.”
But you have said that you personally don’t want wolves around. So for you, this is about wolves, right? Here’s a quote from you:
”We don't want grizzlies, and wolves here, and especially not under the endangered species act that is insane in the way it puts even rattle snakes above the private property rights of humans.”
”If these extremists are left unchecked the "Yellowstone to Yukon Corridor" found in the Wildlands project that they envision will become reality at the expense of Montanas',Wyomings' and Idahos' economies.”
I thought you said that it wasn’t about money?
”It is not about wolves. It is about clearing 18 million acres in the west of all signs of human habitation.It is called the Wildlands Project!.”
Now you say again that it isn’t about wolves. Is it about wolves or not?
I take it you are no longer "respectfully disagreeing" with me? That didn't last long :-)
It was you who said that you could co-exist with wolves, as long as their numbers were "controlled" and they were "controlled" by man.
As to sources and web sites, I think the article I posted was pretty good. What specifically in it do you disagree with?
And as to my statement that I have no problem with people shooting wolves that come onto their property. I was asked the question -- "what about a wolf coming onto to someone's private property?"And my answer is that I have no problem with someone shooting a wolf that comes onto their private property. It seems to me that it is the anti-wolf folks who think that wolves ought to be able to tell the difference between federal lands and private property. Am I wrong?
You don't eat wolves. They are carrnivores.
You are contradicting yourself from your last post in which you talked about the natural cycle and the bouncing ball effect. I don’t’ agree with what you have said here. Here’s why: wolves cannot clear out an area. It’s not physically possible for them. Once prey levels are reduced, wolves start to kill each other. Healthy elk (or whatever the prey is) are difficult for wolves to kill. They receive injuries -–sometimes fatal injuries and it is usually the alphas that are injured or incapacitated. So what happens is the wolves populations decrease – the herds begin to increase and the cycle repeats.
We have already established that wolves are to be managed and kept “in territory” so your scenario of them just “moving on” is not applicable. And your “stomp on them” – “extremely heavy hand” descriptions of what is required is not something I agree with either.
The UN has alot of agendas. I'm not paranoid about any of them. The UN wants to tax you, too, and take away your guns. The UN wants to do a lot of things. I'm not hysterical or lost in black helicopter, tinfoil hat paranoia about any of it. So the dreaded "Agenda 21" of the United Nations doesn't mean anything in this argument, imo.
You have never researched critical environmental study, have you? Moderation is not even a consideration to these people.
Well I'm sorry for her and her loved ones, but what does that have to do with humans co-existing with wolves?
Did you follow the story about the woman who was killed by dogs in San Francisco? Do you think that that means that humans can't co-exist with dogs? What about other humans? Humans have been viciously killed by other humans? Humans have been killed by cars, too -- and guns. Should we exterminate cars and guns?
Someone is going to control public lands whether you like them to or not,about the other charges you claim I'd like to see the quotes in question before I call them strawmen.
It's very hard for some people to grasp the concept that there are others with different views than they have and that that's ok.
Some views are not compatible with conservatism whatsoever. Nanny-state top-down "experimental" enviromentalism is one of those, your conviviality with JackRyanCIA notwithstanding.
I think that is a gross exaggeration. I'm posting a letter from Steve Nadeau of Idaho Fish and Game who contradicts your claims. As for your dreams for your progeny, you are free to buy up a bunch of land and do whatever you please with it. Here's the letter:
"Mr. Cyr,
"I will try to answer your questions for you, though you may obtain much of this info from our website.
"How many wolves are in Idaho - collard and un-collard - total? The tribe has estimated about 380 wolves so far this year in idaho.
"How many collard wolves are there in the state? They have about 22 known packs that are radio collared in Idaho.
"How many are females? See tribal website
"How many are males? See tribal website
"What are the numbers for the animals taken: elk, deer, lion, bear? Don't know. However, based on research in Idaho, MT and Yellowstone, wolves will eat approximately 14-18 elk/wolf/year. Mostly eat elk in the studies in Idaho, lots of deer in Montana. Probably depends upon the prey in the area they set up there pack.
"What impact has the wolf had on herds? To date we have been unable to determine any impact on our elk herds or deer populations. Where we have been monitoring our elk populations specifically looking for impacts of wolves in Unit 28, we have found that the fires and habitat conditions caused the elk calf ratios to change since 1995. The calf:cow ratios declined in there until last winter, 2 years following a major fire. The calf cow ratios increased to 36 calves:100 cows, right in the middle of wolf pack activity. This suggests that there is much that influences elk populations and wolves are only one of them, and not the biggest factor.
"Spring kill numbers (birthing)? Most of wolf predation on elk in the study around Salmon, and in Yellowstone, indicate that about 50% of their prey is young of year, and 35% is old, the rest is varying age and some of questionable health.
"Summer kill numbers (sport)? Wolves are required to kill to survive all year long. The late summer is the toughest time for them because game is in the best condition of the year, calves are now able to run with adults. At this time they tend to hunt alternate prey as well. Small mammals, beavers, even fish, and also tend to get into livestock problems. Pups are just learning to hunt but can't kill on their own. the adults have more mouths to feed. We have not been able to determine that wolves will kill for sport alone. The surplus killing reported usually involves animals having been scared off of carcasses. It is a very rare occurrence in the research areas. Every time a wolf tries to kill an animal as big as eg. elk or moose, many times larger than them, they put themselves at risk of being injured or killed. That is why they tend to figure out the easiest animal to kill, and if they can't find one they move on. Their home ranges in Idaho are about 350 square miles, and pack size is about 5 animals average. They have to travel alot to maintain their pack territories and find available and weakened game (Idaho avereages about 2 elk/square mile).
Fall kill numbers (sport) "Same answer, except that wolves can now find wounded elk and deer from hunter losses, which in Idaho is about 5-10% of legally taken elk and deer, or approximately 1-2,000 elk/year and about 5,000 deer per year that are wounded and not retreived, about what wolves would kill on their own if they couldn't find carcasses. For a couple months of the year anyway, they don't have to kill much at all. They can mostly just scavenge. "Winter kill numbers (survival)? late winter, early spring is the easiest time for wolves to kill elk and deer. They are in the poorest condition at that time. In yellowstone, March and April were the 2 highest predation months.
"Where are the wolf packs located? Wolves are now well distributed across Idaho. They have not established themselves very well on private land far from national forests, or out in the desert areas. However, they are most densely located in the Clearwater Region and McCall Subregion and around Salmon.
"The impacts of wolves on our big game populations has been greatly exagerated so far. Although approximately 3-400 wolves may currently live in Idaho, their combined impact on elk populations is approximately 4-5000 a year. Each year the elk population increases with a birthing pulse, and decreases dependent upon everything else. We have found that our elk populations in Idaho appear to be near their highest ever recorded. Our hunter success varies between 20-25% on average, and mostly dependent upon weather conditions. Wolves apparently have a very big impact on hunter attitudes, but they shouldn't be changing the number of elk available for harvest yet.
"We do hope to be able to start managing wolves as a big game animal once they are delisted. At that time, we hope to be able to implement sport hunting, and control some of the burgeoning populations where they may be impacting game herds. Simply put, when hunters see a wolf track on an elk track, or wolf tracks and no elk tracks, they immediately think the worse. Wolves may move elk into the timber, or elk may be using habitat a little differently. However, it is a grave mistake to think that elk are being eliminated by wolves. Unlike domesticated cattle and sheep, elk and deer know how to avoid getting eaten. All hunters have to do is start to figure out how to hunt when wolves are around, and they will be able to do as well as ever.... that still means that 75% of hunters will not kill an elk this year. I hope they don't all blame wolves. Thank you for your comments and questions."
Steve Nadeau
Staff Biologist
Idaho Dept. Fish and Game
600 S. Walnut, Box 25
Boise, ID 83707
Phone: 208-334-2920
So what if they are carnivors?
That someone is the federal government at the moment. If you are interested in looking up the quotes I'm sure you are capable of finding them.
It's very hard for some people to grasp the concept that there are others with different views than they have and that that's ok. And that includes (but is not limited to) that there really are people with conservative views who disagree. Not all conservatives believe exactly the same thing, thank goodness.
Nope. I hunt for the bloodlust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.