Saturday, October 25, 2014
What's New in the New West
Home » Rockies » New Mexico » ABQ / Santa Fe » A Message to Wolf Haters: Fight Trigger Itch
Here's something you probably never heard a western rancher say: "Government is a wonderful thing." But that might be precisely what they're saying down in the coffee shops and saloons in Idaho and Wyoming because they could be thinking the federal government has accidentally given them the opportunity to shoot as many wolves as they can for the next 30 days with no consequences. To this, I say: Don't even think about it.

A Message to Wolf Haters: Fight Trigger Itch

Here’s something you probably never heard a western rancher say: “Government is a wonderful thing.”

But that might be precisely what they’re saying down in the coffee shops and saloons in Idaho and Wyoming because they could be thinking the federal government has accidentally given them the opportunity to shoot as many wolves as they can for the next 30 days with no consequences.

To this, I say: Don’t even think about it.

Anybody exposed to news knows that today, March 28, the federal government officially and totally removed the wolf from the endangered species list in northern Rockies. Eleven conservation groups have made it crystal clear that they believe it’s too soon to remove protections and plan to sue to keep the wolf an endangered species.

But most people don’t know about the loophole.

Here’s how it happened, as explained to NewWest.Net by Amelia Orton-Palmer of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Endangered Species Act dictates that a notice of delisting must be filed 30 days in advance of the actual delisting. That notice went out on February 28, 30 days before the actual delisting on March 28.

Orton-Palmer also said the Act says a delisting notification, such as the February 28 notice, can’t be dragged into the courts for 60 days after a “notice of intent” to sue is filed, which the eleven conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, did on the first day they could, February 28. That means they can’t actually file the lawsuit and ask for an injunction until April 28, leaving the 30-day loophole or what the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) calls “open season on wolves.”

Actually, I should say, 30 days or more, because there’s hardly a guarantee that a court will immediately rule to halt delisting–or ever will. But Earthjustice has been quite effective in such litigation, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see courts quickly suspend delisting.

Can you imagine a covey of wolf haters convincing themselves this might be their “only shot” to have their vigilante justice and do their part to keep wolf numbers down. After all, the courts could suspend the state agency plans and delisting, which could delay sport hunting or liberal killing of wolves for years.

I hope this isn’t happening, but it wouldn’t shock me to find out about some semi-organized “wolf hunts” starting this weekend. I urge these guys to control their trigger itch because being stupid could be self-defeating.

In Wyoming, 88 percent of the state, including the current home range of five wolf packs and near that of ten more, “anybody can shoot a wolf for any reason,” says Mike Leahy, DOW rocky mountain director, without even having a permit.

“A lot could happen in 30 days,” Leahy told NewWest.Net. “There is supposed to be reporting, but it will be very hard to keep tabs on this.”

And according to Leahy, recent actions by Idaho create almost the same situation.

On March 26, the Idaho legislature passed Senate Bill 1374 and sent it the governor for signature. The bill allows Idaho residents to shoot a wolf if it’s “molesting or attacking” domestic livestock or pets. And “chances are nil that the governor won’t sign it,” Leahy says, “since his own people recommended it.”

“Molesting” is almost comically defined as worrying, annoying, disturbing, persecuting, lying in wait, flushing, stalking, following after, on the trail of, chasing, or driving any domestic animal.

In other words, Leahy says, “If wolves are howling and worrying your cattle, you could go out an shoot them.”

“It’s not much of a stretch” to say Idaho is in the same situation as Wyoming, adds Leahy.

Orton-Palmer admitted that the FWS could have extended the period between notice and delisting to 60 days or more to prevent the loophole, but she said FWS scientists weren’t worried about any impact on the wolf population so saw no need to do so.

Ed Bangs, who was in charge of wolf recovery for the FWS until today, agrees and isn’t worried about the loophole being a big problem–“theoretically, yes, but practically, no. “A few wolves might be killed, but biologically it won’t affect the population.”

Plus, he reminds us that there’s no guarantee the courts will grant the plaintiffs an injunction to stop delisting on April 28, or ever. “It’s hard to get those injunctions, especially in this case with the state plans in place. I’m not sure they will get it at all. The wolf population is going to be fine under any circumstances, but a goofy reaction during these 30 days almost guarantees that there will be an injunction. Any bad reaction from the redneck element only helps those who want to keep wolves on the endangered species list.

“But that’s what’s so interesting about wolves,” he adds with a little chuckle. “People do nutty things. The extreme symbolism of wolves has been going on for a few thousand years and always will be there.”

So, here’s the punch line. Don’t underestimate the passion on both sides of the wolf issue.

The Big Dog is greatest fundraiser ever for DOW and many other green groups, so you aren’t going to see any end to efforts to keep the wolf in the news. Instead, you can expect more fear mongering about the wolf’s upcoming demise, no different than rhetoric you hear from some hunters predicting the wolf will decimate big game herds.

On the other hand, western ranchers and rural communities see the wolf as an agent of change–and a change they don’t want. Wolf reintroduction allows the federal government and eastern greenies to control them, and they refuse to believe ranchers and wolves can peacefully and economically co-exist.

With that kind of disconnect, we’ll always have controversy whenever the four-letter-word is used. So be it, but hopefully, everybody shows restraint during the loophole period because any lack of restraint will likely serve to prolong and intensify the controversy.

About Bill Schneider

Comments

  1. Marion says:

    I cannot imagine how disappointed you are going to be when no wolves are killed. In fact I suspect less than have been killed by Bangs et al.
    How does one differentiate between “wolf haters” & “people haters”?

  2. Glocker21 says:

    Marion,

    Lighten up! How can you say that Bill will be disappointed? And just how does one differentiate between a wolf hater and a people hater?

  3. Dave Skinner says:

    Bill, the “disconnect” is one of reality, and that’s strictly a phenomenon of the Left.
    Most Westerners are grownups, it’s part of the reason many have hung on so long in the fact of the constant political assault on the western way of life.
    In the predator zone (good idea, Wyoming, can we have your Governor?) it turns out the packs that exist are marginal and always in trouble, and only 10 percent of the state official total. Not a big deal from a biological standpoint to hose them off, you could kill every single one and there would be dispersers from the “core” next year — and will be until Yellowstone erupts.
    The important factor there is the current wolves don’t behave themselves, and have not. To spread those animals out further would cause nothing but problems, something which quite a number of us wolf unlovers feel is dearly desired or at least intended by more than a misguided few as well as PLENTY of perfectly rational power-tripping pukes.
    Other media sources have talked to ranchers who for the most part seem to be willing to accept the presence of wolves as long as they have the option of predator control when they feel a need for it. That’s really not asking for a lot.
    I think the reality is, there might be a couple road-hunter kills, maybe a few harassment mortalities at ranches where late calving might still be happening, but a bloodbath? Nah.

  4. Marion says:

    Read his headline, how about waiting before judging? First I have to know what constitutes a wolf hater, a person who is upset at the uncompensated loss of a few thousand dollars worth of animals? Or would it be the family that has paid out 25,000 or more per year for the last 10 years or more to try to provide some protection for his animals?

  5. Marion says:

    But almost no one meets your criteria. On the other hand that sounds like folks who deliberately remove an animal from it’s wilderness home and haul it hundreds of miles away where it will be cheap and easy for so called admirers to line up and ogle it, but unfortunately where it will eat the easier to catch livestock already in the area, and have it’s life endangered.
    There is not and never has been a shortage of wolves, they just required too much effort to even try to see them. The solution was to haul them into an area and require locals to care for them & deal with them.

  6. bearbait says:

    I don’t think someone with a rifle shooting at a wolf in with his now calving cows is a wolf hater. Remember, the rancher does not hate the wolf. He hates what the wolf does to his livestock. Those will be the wolves killed, if any. I really don’t think there will be a land rush to hunt wolves. Nobody owns sight hounds anymore. Few Airedales around. There are no Kazaks with wolf hunting eagles in America. Hunting wolves is no easy matter. In the old country, it was a lifetime of learned skills that made one a wolf hunter. In this country, the wolf hunter was a loner without property or other income. They might have been a tad mad, too.

    When wolves start in on livestock, they have run out of easy pickings on the native prey. They are beginning to find elk and moose that fight back, and wolves are risk avoiders.

    Not one “wolf hater” has said to kill them all or even most of them. All ranchers want is reasonable controls on wolf populations. No control is not reasonable. My opinion. I have not talked to outfitters who now share the game with wolves, but you can be sure there are going to be economic dislocations in that business.

    These next 30 days will probably be pretty ho hum. Uneventful. I just imagine there is some intrepid news reporter who will turn over a million rocks looking for some man-wolf interaction that can be sensationalized to stir the wolf faerie emotions. Hell, that is what this news story is about, is it not?

  7. Marion says:

    Interesingly enough wolf proponents are as wrong about the ease of killing all of wolves as they are about how little damage and how much good they do. Very often the wolfers (hunters) of the old days had a great deal of respect for them even though they understood the tremendous damage they were doing and the need to remove them.

  8. The Old Sarge says:

    This article is one of the most biased I’ve ever read. Your thinking on the wolf issue is convoluted and your reporting, if it qualifies as such, is deliberately misleading.

  9. mostlyMike says:

    The wolf issue is, and always has been, mostly about competing visions of the West.

    Economic arguments are attempts to justify attitudes that would be taken anyway.

  10. Cathy Bestland says:

    Hunter,

    Most people do discuss these issues. The only ones that don’t are wolf haters.

    Marion Pulease!!! “Very often the wolfers (hunters) of the old days had a great deal of respect for them even though they understood the tremendous damage they were doing and the need to remove them.” First of all I have NEVER read in any account that a wolfer ever had any respect for the wolf, but only for the money he earned in killing them. And as far as the tremendous damage they were doing. Do you mean the tremendous damage they were doing to the REAL tremendous damage causers????? Cattle?????? The simple fact of the matter is that wolf haters have NO ligitimate cause to HATE wolves. They hate them because wolves represent an outside influence over public lands and wildlife issues that they mistakenly believe they have exclusive rights over, to dominate, exploit and destroy.

  11. Old Newhouse says:

    Look at the work the nature conservancy does by keeping cattle away from the streams, buying up property along a stream to protect it. I use to fish the lower part of Silver creek until the rancher down there started letting his cattle graze right in the creek, I can tell you that the fishing is no longer what it use to be, thats flyfishing and catch & release too. The cattle need to be moved off public land, if the rancher can’t make it on his own property then time to find another business to go into. No more government handouts to ranchers too. What ever happened to the notion if you can’t make it on your own, then time to re-invent yourself. But then its a waste of time trying to get the wolf haters to see the light as they are spreading so many lies, soon enough they don’t know what the truth is.

  12. Marion says:

    Actually TNC owns some cattle ranches. One I can name off the top of my head is the Red Rock ranch near Lander, WY. They are one of the biggest real estate barons in the US.
    Once mroe slowly, ranchers pay for grazing rights in the mountains for summer range, approximately 3 months per year. On the other hand, wildlife graze for free on private land during the year around, but especially during the long winters that we have here (frankly I am beginning to doubt that this winter will ever end, it already seems to have gone on forever). How much feed summer or winter do any of you provide for any wild thing? You seem so full of hate for rancheers that you are willing to sacrifice a goodly portion of the wildlife winter habitat by forcing ranchers off the land. Smart, real smart.
    If wolves are the wonderful things you claim, why don’t any of you have them where you are?

  13. Old Newhouse says:

    Marion can you tell me if Red Rock ranch is owned by the TNC or just leased??
    Is there a stream nearby, are the cattle allowed to graze right down into the stream??? You have to remember this all of this land once belonged to the animals, so if a deer or elk or even a wolf wants to come and graze in my yard, be my guest. Can you tell me without a shadown of a doubt that cattle do not ruin public land. Because from what I have seen, they do.

  14. Marion says:

    The point is why would you impose a dangerous destructive animal on people and force them to provide protection for it no matter what it does or how much it costs? Is it because you hate them? Why would that not be the case as much as calling the folks trying to provide some protection to their animals wolf haters? I was trying to show you, and Bill as well, that name calling helps nothing and could easily be done on both sides of the coin.

  15. bearbait says:

    To all you who keep calling Marion names, and anyone else who does not march to your drummer: Take the time to read Eric Hofer’s “True Believers” from the 50’s. He was a longshoreman philosopher off the docks of San Francisco Bay. It is a very deep, probing look at zealots, true believers, political and philosophical tunnel vision. The psychological underpinnings of believing, even after the foundations of your belief have been proven false, was addressed by H. Lamar Keene in the Psychic Mafia. He dug into the plight of those True Believers in his book on people’s beliefs in psychic phenomena whose foundations and facts have been dismissed by science and forensic evidence, the people who could not take no for an answer.

    The wolf issue is not about intact ecosystems because ecosystems are never intact, but in a constant stage of change as external and internal conditions give rise to the odds favoring different species under differing conditions. There is no polaroid picture of ecosytems, only polarized philosophical prizes awarded by conscience and personal bent, assisted by convenient NGOs who are replacing the church in our ever increasingly athiestic society. There is never going to be a winner in the wolf argument. There will always be too many wolves when they are taking value and property from one segment or individual, and not enough wolves for the people who believe that large numbers amount to success and thus validate their beliefs in anthropogenic ecology assumptions spoon fed by the NGOs.. The NGO cheerleaders chant their slogans, collect their dues for charismatic fauna promotion, and others lose time, effort and personal treasure in the wolf game which has no balance in sight. That it has become a littany of personal attacks on Non-Believers, Ecological Infidels, is true to form as Hofer stated so long ago.

    As a lifelong contrarian, skeptic, I know that when the attacks become personal, it is because their Gestapo, NKVD, CIA, are close at hand to enforce their dogma, cleanse the countryside of Non-Believers. The right wing of America does not even begin to scare this puppy. It is the True Believers of the Left that are at war with the Constitution, the American Way, the foundations of our society built on Trust. How many times have writers on this one subject gotten into rants on the failure of economic democracy, the electoral process, and the assumed intellectual prowess of anyone who does not think their way? This article begins assuming that only bad things will happen to wolves in the next 30 days. Where is the trust that the vast majority will do the right thing? Where is the confidence in our people, our society as a whole? This country has a good foundation and hundreds of millions of good people, who do good things. The next thirty days will bear that out. If not, demean me, not people like Marion. I have faith that most wolves will go about their busines unrestrained, and if one gets in the lambing pens or the calving pasture, it could be shot. So what? There are a hundred packs about to give birth to another phalanx of wolf puppies eager to learn how to live off the land.

    LEAVE THE PERSONAL ATTACKS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. If someone makes statements that make them out to be an idiot, the readers will know without your telling them, smarty pants. And if what they are saying is not the truth, then, like Hillary, their pants will catch on fire. If what you are saying is blather, the readers will know that, too. Demeaning someone only makes you less of an expert, useful voice, important contributor, and worthwhile human being.

  16. Craig Moore says:

    What I feel to see discussed here or anywhere else is the right ratio of predator populations (black bears, grizzlies, wolves, cougars, and coyotes) in a given environment. Then, what is the proper mix of predators to wild game prey (deer, moose, elk, antelope, game birds) in that environment. THEN, what interdictive measures are appropriate when the ratios become unbalanced?

    We keep discussion wolves in a vacuum without regard to the other expanding predator populations. Is this by design or are we just not awake?

  17. Craig Moore says:

    should be ‘fail’ not ‘feel.’

  18. Steve C says:

    Marion, it can be argued whether or not wolves are destructive… but dangerous? You know as well as I do that wolves pose much less of a danger to humans than dogs, bees, horses etc. There you go spreading your filthy propaganda again. Since you have turned the word “enviro” into an insult that links people “human hating”, “stealing property”, “killing the nation’s food supply” and every other horrible thing you can think to blame on them maybe you should stop whining about personal attacks. When the content of your arguments is weak you change the subject and cry,cry,cry.

  19. Craig Moore says:

    The topic here is wolves, hug them or shoot them. Steve, your thoughts? As far as I know Gov. Schweitzer, and Sens. Baucus and Tester favor the bullet.

  20. Hunter says:

    Marion, you said: “Once mroe(sic) slowly, ranchers pay for grazing rights in the mountains for summer range, approximately 3 months per year.” You are correct. According to the USDA, grazing fees for 2006 were $1.56 per head month. That means that a rancher pays $1.56 per cattle per month, or $4.68 per cattle for 3 months on public land. And the land managers talk about a backlog of repair projects and a lack of funds. My guess is that these cattle do way more than that in damage to the places they trample. I wonder how much they are compensated for a wolf kill; maybe they should be compensated the same price they pay to be in the wolves’ habitat. In comparison, the fee demonstration program formerly instituted in select western states charged $5.00 per day per person for someone to hike on the trails. Where are our priorities?

  21. Steve C says:

    Craig, I favor a limited hunt and removing repeat offenders that attack livestock only after all other methods of hazing, negative conditioning, and nonlethal control have been exhausted. I feel that Idaho and Wyoming’s stances are way too extreme and they don’t deserve the right to manage wolves until they can be reasonable. Bring on the lawsuits!

  22. gline says:

    “We keep discussion wolves in a vacuum without regard to the other expanding predator populations. Is this by design or are we just not awake?”

    Craig: the fact is that wolves were killed almost to extinction in the lower 48 with the exception of MN. That is the problem – why are wolves more hated, poisoned, trapped and killed more than any other predator? Like you said there are other predators. (Including ourselves) However I dont think the Grizzly bear and cougar have expanded to what they used to be 100 years ago. Let us not forget there was a thriving wild land here 150 years ago TEEMING with wildlife, not cattle. Today’s picture of wildlife is a mere pittance.

  23. gline says:

    Marion: I’ve seen your comments many times on wolf related sites. It amazes me how little compassion you have for such a wild and beautiful animal. Your main concern is money. cattle loss. You discuss ranchers paying to use public land to raise ‘our’ cattle. As Hunter quotes above, that public land is leased for less than $2.00 AU. The damage those cattle do to the natural land is far worse than what you pay to feed your cattle. Then the cost of loss of wildlife such as this huge debacle and nightmare of delisting wolves, a natural, original predator of the western US, Canada, Alaska and Mexico. You act so entitled. and spoiled.

  24. Steve C says:

    And money is her weakest argument because these states are appropriating MILLIONS to control wolves. Far more money than the value of damage that wolves cause. They would do much better using this money to compensate ranchers for losses and to pay for non-lethal protections for livestock. Western politicians want the wolf controversy to stay alive at any cost to keep distracting weak minded individuals (cough:: Marion:: cough) from the real threats to our wild places and wildlife…

    gline, I would say that wolves are a close second to coyotes for most persecuted/tortured species…

  25. Craig Moore says:

    Neither Steve nor gline seemed to grasped my questions. I won’t belabor it. Now, wold delisting puts wolf management in the hands of the states. What is wrong with that and why does that merit lawsuits? In my opinion, the states are much better situated to do a professional job and balance the interests. Putting it another way, why do the lawsuit proponents oppose state management?

  26. Craig Moore says:

    Sometimes my cursor seems to jump and mash things together. However, ‘wold’ should be ‘wolf.’

  27. Steve C says:

    I answered your questions and outlined my opinions above, craig. Let me know what you don’t “grasp” about my response.

  28. Craig Moore says:

    Let’s not bicker. Do you oppose state management versus favoring expensive federal litigation? If so, why?

  29. Craig Moore says:

    Did it again. Should have written, “Do you support…”

  30. Steve C says:

    I feel that this “predator” status in much of wyoming shows that they are not mature enough to manage wolves with limited hunting and killing of problem animals. Their (and Idaho’s) aggressive stances seem like many of the practices that wiped out the wolf in the first place will become commonplace again. For that, I feel that the wolf should remain on the endangered species list until these states come up with responsible plans and only through the courts can this happen. Also, many wolf supporters are not opposed to limited wolf hunts and some lethal control.

  31. Craig Moore says:

    Jeffe E. and Steve C., are you native to Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming? In what state do you live and vote?

  32. Craig Moore says:

    In addition as to your status, specifically what objects do you have?

    Wyoming wolf management plan: http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/WolfPlanFinal8-6-03.pdf

    Montana plan: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/management.html

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

  33. Craig Moore says:

    Should be ‘objections.’

  34. Craig Moore says:

    It has to do with why someone may object to state management. Are there real reasons or just biases or control leverage issues if someone is not a western resident and has no vote in the state.

  35. Dave Skinner says:

    Come on, Jeff, answer the question.
    State or feds? Litigate now or wait and see?
    Shoot or hug?
    Cows or condos?
    Finally, I’m glad Marion takes the time to fly the flag for the team in white hats.

  36. Craig Moore says:

    By the way, Idaho’s wolf management plan was adopted March 2008.
    Don’t stray into past history.

  37. Craig Moore says:

    What federal interest is there in wolf recovery beyond seeing that there are healthy reproducing populations? That’s what the endangered species designation accomplished. HOW those populations are managed are now for the states to decide. So long as healthy populations continue to exist, I don’t see a federal interest and it is a matter of state’s rights. Every state has a professional wildlife agency, legislature and a governor. If someone objects to state management practices, take it up with them….but it is not a federal interest so long as the populations are healthy. Maintaining healthy wolf populations are embodied in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho wolf plans and in the commitments made by wildlife agency officials such as Cal Groen.

  38. Craig Moore says:

    As of March 28th, Idaho’s Fish & Game took over wolf management. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=4325

  39. Adam says:

    I believe the misunderstandings on both sides of the fence are due to both intellecual arrogance, as well as just plain ignorance.
    I understand that not all supporters of the wolf are as ignorant as the person who wrote this article, so I will not call you all “tree hugging freaks.” so I hope, just because I am a hunter, you will not call me a “wolf hater.”
    I cannot speak for everyone (Which seems to be the problem on both sides) but let me say this. I love the fact that wolves are back. This creates excitment in the backcountry. I would go as far to say that even if wolves were depleting other big game animals, I would be more than glad to step aside and let them have what thay have had for thousands of years.
    But, when it comes to delisting, lets not be childish. Lets ask ourselves some questions. Are the Fish and Game people that stupid that they would actualy delist an animal that really was endangered? If you say yes, than look at the history. Has the fish and wildlife people made a huge delisting misake that cost the survival of a species? and if they have, havnt they emediately fixed the problem? EXAMPLE: Bighorn sheep are thriving in the rockies. There is a STRICT quota of animals that can be taken. If the fish and game department were as stupid as you people seem to suggest, then they would alow every person that wanted to kill a sheep, to kill a sheep! No, most hunters in the U.S. will NEVER kill one, even after puting the money in trying to draw. Think for a second. This is just one example.
    Also, although every American should have some opinion over the debate, shouldnt we give the responsibility to the people most effected by the wolves themselves, good or bad. Of course i am talking about the ranchers and residents in wolf country. How can you suggest these people are less intelligent, or “wolf hating” just because they want to protect their pets and property? They have More, thats right,more of a say in the matter than ANY of us. You telling them how to manage the wolf, is as ignorant as us telling california they need to manage their ignorant tree-hugging morans that threaten the rest of the country.
    I am a hunter AND I love wolves, whether you people want to hear it or not. Dont get your feelings hurt just because they are now delisted. If the fish and wildlife officials fail and make a huge mistake, well then we’ll take the neccessary steps and reinlist them, on the endangered species. The truth is, “wolf-lover” are not looking at the facts intelligently, they are going off of emotions just because they wouldnt want ANY animal on earth to be killed. and you claim us hunters are doing exactly what your doing, going off of our “blood-thursting” cravings. I am a hunter. I do not NEED to kill. Killing is merely a part of the hunt, and unless someone has also shared the experience of being in the wilderness, hunting prey, while having other big predators around, i cant take their opinions in such matters.

    BY THE WAY: the season on wolves is proposed for the fall of this year. so NO, hunters are not going to have an open season for 30 days. Also, I can garintee the demand will be FAR greater than the supply when it comes to tags available to hunt the wolf. So dont go around puting an ignorant, unrealistic fear in peoples minds that huinters are going to be able to kill every last wolf in a matter of day, weeks or months. THis is pure stupidity.

  40. Dave Skinner says:

    Yeah, Adam, yer right. Gonna be a lot more tags, and darn few filled. From a game management standpoint, the value of wolves is the skin, and there’s really not that much demand for either the fur or the “pleasure” of collecting one. I think I figured it out a few months ago, each wolf has cost about 15 grand to raise and protect and mollycoddle. Wolf tag is 19. Does that mean MT FWP expects to sell a thousand tags per pop or are hunters going to have to cross-subsidize this with money from other programs, which probably would have been better-spent — on other programs?
    Wow, I love government.

  41. Hunter says:

    More grist for the mill…
    According to the USFWS:
    Livestock losses until late Nov. 2006 were 170 cattle, 344 sheep, 8 dogs, 1 horse, 1 mule, and 2 llamas in MT, WY, and ID.
    In all three of these states (I live in MT by the way) the wolf populations are: MT-316, ID-673, WY-311 (includes YNP)
    Let’s do the math… total wolf pop= 1300, total confirmed wolf kills= 562 (less than 1/2 of them cattle). Total cattle numbers in these states for 2006= MT-2.4mil, ID=2.1mil, WY= (sorry, couldn’t find WY) So, look at the numbers; of 4.5 million cattle in 2 states 170 were killed. That is something like .004% of the cattle population. So, to make a claim that wolves are dangerous seems to be a bit of an exaggeration in light of all these numbers.

  42. Kai Eiselein says:

    When you are a farmer and run 25-30 head of cattle on the side for a few extra bucks and wolves kill two calves, that IS a big deal.

  43. gline says:

    Then Kai, that would be the time to use non lethal controls, which there are many. you would just have to put the time and money into it. Defenders used to compensate for rancher loss, dont think they are now due to the fact that your state is “managing” the wolf (I’m assuming you are in the west). But the real problem to me seems to be the rancher putting the TIME and money into it. Seems to me most ranchers would rather just kill the wolf instead as it is much easier. only problem being something called the Endangered Species Act.

  44. Steve C says:

    Hunter, good point about the .004% of cattle loss. That number makes the fact that wyoming has appropriated 6 million dollars for wolf control even more rediculous. They could much more effectively put that money towards compensating ranchers for livestock losses and prevention expenses.

    Craig, I am from the northeast and I visit Montana and Wyoming often. I hope to end up out there some day. Geographic location plays no part in many of these arguments as I pay my taxes week in and week out and my money goes towards wolf programs, paying for public lands, predator control programs etc. Also, with a pending wolf reintroduction planned for the northeast these issues are very interesting to me. To answer your question about the wolf plans, I feel that the rhetoric of wyoming and idaho indicate that no matter what their wolf plans say, they don’t plan to enforce anything other than the minimum populations required to not trigger re-listing.

    On an unrelated note, I read that montana and wyoming are starting pilot programs to haze, capture and slaughter elk at the behest of the cattle industry much like what is happening with bison outside of yellowstone. Seems pretty unbelievable to hear people say that wolves are killing all of the elk/ ranchers support wildlife in light of this being done. And imagine how large the scale will be considering how many more elk there are when compared to bison. I think that hunters and wolf-huggers will find that they are both on the same side against ranching going forward…

  45. Marion says:

    The unrealistic ideas of how fast wolves are going to be killed are an example of just howlittle these folks even know about wolves and the nature of them, cute little statements about all of the non lethal means of dealing with wolves add to the lack of reality. The idea that Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho ranchers are responsible for the demsie fo the wolf in the lower 48 is another example of the lack of actual knowledge. Likeit or lump it wolves were exterminated across these United states by settlers irregardless of what their business was, and they were eliminated east of the Mississippi long before there was a Wyoming, much less a Wyoming rancher.
    Interestingly enough not a single wolf lover is actually trying to deal with wolves themselves, only trying to force others to do so. I do write on a lot of these blogs, and I have yet to see one person who is writing about what they themselves are doing to protect their animals on their property. Maybe becasue they are careful not to live where they want the wolves to live. Guess who’d call an exterminator if they find termites in their house or a rattlesnake. I doubt they would be worrying about how to deal with it on a non lethal basis.
    As for the ESA, it had to be changed and the 10j rule put in in order to legally introduce these wolves OUTSIDE of their territory. If you google 10j and wolves you will see that is a fact.
    It is most interesting that those who impossed their will on other people irregardless of teh damage are the ones that spew the hatred, including the title of this article (I had actully expected more of Bill).
    Thanks to Craig, Dave, bearbait, Adam, and Kai for reasoned comments. Sometimes I get so mad at the expressed hatred by these people that I don’t write for awhile, and I’m glad there are others to carry on.

  46. Steve C says:

    There you go with your propaganda again, marion. Who ever said that only idaho, wyoming, and montana eliminated wolves? It was a concerted effort by every state government and by the federal government. Do you care to respond to my point about wyoming spending 6 million dollars on controlling wolves to prevent a few hundred thousand in losses? There are easy solutions to all of these problems and you continuing to spout this vile “us against them” rhetoric just gets everyone angry. Also please respond to the stalled northeast wolf reintroduction plans, the southwest wolf reintruoduction, and the eastern redwolf reintroduction when you keep up with this “not in my backyard” BS.

  47. Steve C says:

    Marion, that makes it even more disgusting that the state of wyoming will spend millions of dollars flying helicopters to kill wolves before they give a cent to livestock producing families who have to deal with wolves on the front lines. Thanks for ignoring all of my points by the way. Marion, you have invented a new form of bullsh*t. I think I will call it Greybullsh*t.

  48. elfman says:

    I love the wolf. I have had the pleasure of seeing about 10 of them at different times in my life in Montana. I will not forget each and every one of them. What a fantastic and interesting creature. This fact should be acknowledged by everyone on both sides of the fence.

    To perpetuate the notion that a wolf is innately “evil” is just asinine. Yes, they kill calves now and then but the damage to the cattle industry as a whole is minuscule and inconsequential. With every business comes risk. It is curious that ranchers do not want compensation for the loss of livestock due to coyote kills considering the fact they are responsible for 20+ times the amount of cattle kills as wolves. Hell, for that matter domestic dogs kill many more cows than wolves!

  49. Marion says:

    At least Jeff, you admit what you think the ranchers are doing.

  50. Bill Schneider says:

    As I’ve said several times earlier in comment sections, I welcome and respect everybody’s comments and opinions, even if they disagree with my opinion. However, I much prefer comments that address the issue and not the person. In this case, my original commentary expressed concerns about people doing crazy things during a legal loophole, but very few of the comments were directed at the original message. Some people hate wolves; some people love wolves, both with equal passion. My point was that it would be counterproductive for those who hate wolves to do take advantage of the loophole because it plays into the hand of their competion, lessening any chance of delisting or sport hunting for wolves….Bill

  51. Marion says:

    By the way Steve, Wyoming will be compensating livestock owners for wolf kills….at a far greater rate than DOW.

  52. Marion says:

    Bill, the fact remains no one has killed any of the wolves, there is nothing to indicate a trigger finger or anything else. You seem to be making the accusations and calling the names BEFORE there is any reason to do so…if there ever is. I do not think that is fair.

  53. Bill Schneider says:

    Marion…If nothing happens, great. That’s exactly what I was saying. If people what the wolf delisted and the lawsuit to fail so there can be wolf hunting this fall, control the trigger itch. After something happens, if it does, is too late, which is why I wanted to get out in front of this before anything could happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure….Bill

  54. Marion says:

    Jeff, I think the difference between articles written by residents and those in the “beltway” (even though he claims to be from Wisconsin) is the difference between those who actually deal with the wolves and are able to deal with reality & those who read fiction and propaganda from fund raisers. Let’s face it would anyone send money to them if they showed pictures of elk with their hind ends eaten off while alive, or a pen of sheep torn to bits and left, or a young colt torn apart instead of a cute little wolf puppy?

  55. mike says:

    I understand and respect Bill’s intent for his article, although I’m not sure that any good will be served by having the trigger-happy fringe hold their fire for a few months only to unleash it later.

    At the same time, I continue to be concerned by the crowd that always posts here posing as representatives of some monolithic ranching community, its interests and its views. These people are generally not what they seem and should be more forthright in “fessing up” to the fact that they really aren’t part of the ranching community, don’t have much real experience with that community, and really don’t know much about that business or way of life or about what they like to pontificate about. The truth is that, upon reviewing the postings here, we just have the usual gossipers. We have the strutting photographer, who may or may not have taken pictures at a ranch at some time or another. We have the opinionated and outspoken berry-farmer, who may or not have wolves eating his berries. We have the elderly anti-government lady who lives on her government retirement and tries so very hard to get people to believe she is from a ranch background, but who really only got to visit her relatives’ sheep and weasel farm as a young girl and has been using it as a facade ever since. We have some maladjusted PETA types, bless their childlike hearts. We have a few loafers who want a guarantee of an easy time having a successful hunt on a ranch owned by a guy like me who will have to clean up their trash afterward; and, if we’re lucky, we might still get a comment from the lunatic who purports to speak for the MSLF and may or may not have stood by strutting and watching the hired help work some cattle on a ranch owned by a relative. So many of these people are just flat desperate to use ranchers as the magic rhetorical crowbar to force their political agenda; but, the truth is that none of them have any business or credibility speaking for us, using us, or otherwise putting words in our mouths. Real ranchers face lots of challenges and wolves can be a significant part of those challenges in relatively rare circumstances; but, the argument about wolves is more about politics and the egos of the charlatans that want to manipulate the ranching community than about any real ranching impact. If people truly want to stand up for ranchers, real ranchers, they can start by exposing and reforming the manipulative and monopolistic tyranny of the meatpackers. This wolf issue is just another distraction tailored to keep everyone from focusing on the real problems caused by those who wield the real power over ranchers.

  56. elfman says:

    Marion – you say there is nothing to indicate a trigger finger?? How about all the talk we hear so often from those who hate wolves? How about the three S rule we hear about so often? Do you not think these things give one good reason to believe that they may be some out there who would love to take advantage of this loophole? Be real.

    I am with Bill. I hope nothing happens but it is ludicrous to suggest that we do not have good reason to believe many would like to exploit the loophole.

  57. Marion says:

    Bill are you saying calling the “victims” as it were, in this situation names and making unfounded accusations is getting out in front to prevent anything?
    Surely you live close enough to the land in Montana to figure out that if the locals really wanted to SSS they surely could have and we would have maybe 300 or the 50 they have in the southwest, not the 1500-2000 we now have. Individuals may have acted stupidly, but by and large even though we didn’t like the whole thing the residents of these 3 states have acted honorably in the face of name calling and real harship in some cases.
    The hatred being spewed out is against the people who have to actually deal with the wolves and pay the cost, not by them.
    Anyone that might be looking for a wolf to kill is not going to be reading this, it was written to pander to those who value wolves over humans…..IMHO.
    I’d like a count of the wolves seen by all of those who write on here outsdie of Yellowstone NP, in my case, 0. where do you think people are going to find all of these wolves to kill?

  58. elfman says:

    Marion – I have seen a wolves in Marion (ironically), MT, Ninemile, Bitterroot Valley… ALL well outside of YNP. It would not be that hard to bait up some wolves in the ninemile valley if one wished to do so.

  59. Marion says:

    Free speech and opinions for everyone is a pain isn’t it Steve. You guys would never know what sites I was on if you weren’t’ there. I guess you consider name calling and dissing those who are actually dealing with wolves meaningful discussions, I respectfully disagree.

  60. Steve C says:

    You have a right to say the things you say, that doesnt mean that it isnt a pain when you say the exact same things over and over while at the same time refusing to respond to the MANY people who continuously disprove your points.

  61. Mr. Twister says:

    well said mike. I note no responce from the usual suspects.
    As the man said, “call in the hounds and piss on the fire, the hunt is over”.

  62. Dave Skinner says:

    Erroneous information?
    Doncha think maybe the press might be a little to blame for that? And Jeff, didn’t you say you live in Idaho? I wouldn’t call the Statist a very good paper, or the Salt Lake Tribunal. Never mind the Northeast, where Steve has to rely on his ever-trusty New York Times and WABC et al for all the facts? Like they never make an error — and the alternative media you both consult, and perhaps the environmental groups you clearly symp with, might not shade their “information” just a wolf hair?
    As for repetition, answer me why anyone should stop repeating themselves if their conclusions are correct, hmmm?
    The fact of the matter is that wolves have had impacts concentrated upon sportsmen and livestock producers almost exclusively. Those who think wolves are cool are, for the most part, absolutely not impacted while, because they don’t see the consequences, feel the benefits are limitless.
    The bottom line here is that the costs are absolutely not connected with the benefits in any way shape or form. The only exception is those ranchers and sportspeople, such as hunter, who feel wolves are worth it…so far. And in order for wolves to remain “worth it,” then there needs to be options for when the costs, tangible or not, exceed the benefits…tangible or not.
    We are at that point, and have been ever since wolf populations hit their agreed-upon target. Let’s just say I hope to hit mine.

  63. gline says:

    Hey Marion:
    If you dislike wolves so much why dont you leave? turn the tables on you for once. your comment “Interestingly enough not a single wolf lover is actually trying to deal with wolves themselves, only trying to force others to do so.” is absolutely ridiculous. Have you been on Ralph Maughn’s site lately? Heard about Lynne STone, wolf advocate, being assualted by Ron Gillette, anti wolfer? What planet are you on?
    Wolves have been here millions of years, yes the Dire wolf, a prehistoric wolf roamed the world with all other animals. Not one animal became extinct because of the Dire wolf. The Gray wolf lived along right along with this prehistoric predator. There was a balance that played out… when a species like homo sapiens comes along, that balance seems to fall to pieces. The Gray wolf, which had been here for millions of years was just about exterminated by your ancestors Marion. What makes you think people have a right to do that? And not just a right to exterminate a species you dont like but disregard the positive things it adds to the ecological landscape? Again, what planet are you on? I would like to see you survive in the Bronx for awhile. see what you think then.

  64. Steve C says:

    Eastern coyotes have been genetically linked to wolves, are larger than western coyotes, and plenty of people living in their midst are staunch supporters of them, and are affected by them every day. EVERYONE lives with and is impacted by wildlife. I wonder why there are not anti-wolf posters from the great lakes region complaining. They have been living with wolves for decades. You would think with the vastness of the internet, there would be irate canadians posting here sharing their canadian wolf horror stories. Why no alaskans? It seems to me that moaning and complaining must be a greater yellowstone thing…

  65. gespatial says:

    Emotions run rampant on the wolf delisting.

    Edward D. Mann researched the pop culture history of people and wolves.

    For a lighter side of the issue, read his journal notes at:

    http:/www.spatialinterest.info/eds_blog.html

  66. steve kelly says:

    Dave Skinner I’m with you on the cost/benefit analysis, but only if we apply it fairly to ranching, hunting, logging, mining and other sacred subsidies. The results might surprise even you.

  67. Matt Smith says:

    Wow indroducing an uncontrolable preditor to balance nature. Brilliant. If nature were balanced we would have the same moisture every year, the same days without frost, the same length of growing season, the same bird hatch etc. Nature is a yo=yo always has been and always will be. No way can you program wolves to go hungry when the animal birth rate is down. The most logical and effective hunter is man. You can restrict him to certain areas where the harvest is needed most. Increase or decrease the bag limit in direct proportion to the kill neaded. The idea that the wolf makes a quick clean kill is rediculous. They jump on their prey any way then can and then slowly choke the animal to death. A bullet on the other hand is quick and deadly. Of course there will be some wounded but when the hunter has to track the animal for a mile or two and try to figure how he is going to get him loaded in his truck he will not make many bad shots. I worked with the Fish and Game in Elko county Nevada for fifteen years ending in 1968 so I am not just dreaming this up. Matt Smith Twin Falls, Id

  68. Hunter says:

    My wife is a wildlife biologist, and employee of TNC. I have had conversations with her and her colleagues regarding the reintroduction of wolves and their effects on other game species. Yes, wolves will kill and leave the carcass. Yes they will go on killing sprees. this is a natural progression when a species moves into an area for the first time; they attempt to reestablish equilibrium in the ecological system. However, this hasn’t seemed to have the deleterious effect on game numbers in Montana. For the last few seasons, extra tags have been available for deer, and the elk season has been extended in certain districts due to an OVERPOPULATION of game species. In otherwords, there are too many elk and deer. My question is: how can someone claim that wolves are outcompeting man for game when there are not enough game being killed and management numbers are high?

    Also, I think it is important to mention that I am pro-wolf. I have seen wolves outside of YNP; 4 of them. I am also concerned about the hate being thrown around by both sides of this issue. Hate = blinders. There is no way anyone will be able to be objective and thorough when driven by hate. Of course numbers thrown around won’t be accurate, any number I have posted here is subject to rebuttal by anyone with a computer and internet access. I also caution those of you out there to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Just because it is on the internet on a government supported site doesn’t mean it is accurate! Be informed and don’t try to change anyones mind, they are the only person that can change their mind. Be open to discussion, and keep it civil. Leave the name-calling for the 1st graders.

  69. Hunter says:

    Hey Matt, what about poachers? Can you control them? If we could, there wouldn’t be any such thing as poaching. Man is not the perfect hunting machine! Please check your ego at the door.

  70. Rose Mary says:

    Bill, since you have noticed and even commented on the brutality of those comments that are specific in their personal attacks upon Marion ~ BUT those attacks remain posted with your article ~ it can become VERY hard for many of the readers who AGREE with Marion to actually believe there is no bias against commenters of a certain ideology or position on NewWest.net.

    Hang in there Marion! Your comments are appreciated and endorsed by many!!!

    Thank YOU, bearbait, for the wisdom and logic of your comments ~ as always!

  71. Bill Schneider says:

    Rose Mary,

    I can assure you that I have no bias against Marion bearbait, or any other commenter, which is why all comments remain in the comment sections. In fact, I very much admire the tenacity with which Marion stays with it in the face of adversity.

    NewWest.Net doesn’t remove any comments from the comment sections. In three years, I have had many thousands of comments, and the only one that was ever removed was one posted by a researcher who pasted it so much material that the volume locked up the site. I couldn’t remove comments critical of Marion or myself, even if I wanted to do this.

    I suppose it’s fair to say that Marion and I don’t agree on some things, but probably more than she thinks, but that doesn’t really matter. I still welcome and respect her comments.

    Like you, I wish commenters would refrain from personal attacks and address the issue at hand, but as you may suspect, I can’t control that.

    Bill

  72. elfman says:

    Matt – if wolves are so “uncontrollable” then how did we nearly exterminate them in the first place? Also, perhaps you need to be reminded that these wolves were not “introduced”…. they were “RE-introduced” and there is a very big difference. You do realize, do you not, that wolves were a NATURAL part of the north american ecosystem until white man came along and killed them all?

  73. Steve C says:

    So we eliminated an uncontrollable predator with inferior technology and no helicopters or radio collars 60+ years ago? How is that possible?

  74. elfman says:

    Amazing, isn’t it? The “big bad wolf syndrome” is a terrible affliction.

  75. Marion says:

    gline, let me assure you that you are not the first to suggest that me and all others who value our own animals and wildlife leave the state (and presumably all of our property). Some are so kind as to suggest ranchers go out of business and go to work waiting on tourists and wolf watchers. You folks are all heart.
    The wolves were destroyed in the first place by every one being shot and by ranchers hiring trappers who became wolf experts and were able to track, trap, poison, shoot and so on. In otherwords many ways that could not be sued today.
    There is a book by Norman Bailey in 1930, called wildlife in the Yellowstone National Park. He mentions having so many wolves in 1915-1916 that they felt the elk herds were in dnager. How many were lots” Well they killed 2 half grown pups in 1915, then killed 4 adults and 7 more pups in 1916, that seemed to pretty much take the pressure off of the elk, although they felt there may be others that will breed really fast and become a problem again.
    By the time the pups are born there will be around 200 in the park, now that may not seem like much to you, but to follks who know how much problem they can be that is a lot. Remember each wolf is killing approximately 2 elk per month.
    The reason there is still plenty of elk is because the wolves seem to congregate in a few places, but be assured they will move on when they eliminate the game in one spot and will go to another. Look at the moose in the Tetons, they are decreasing pretty dramatically, everything but wolves is credited with that, yet in the Snowies where we fortunately do not have wolves yet, they are doing well.
    As for the collars being a help, remember FWS lost a 22 pack for what, about a year from Yellowstone, lo and behold someone finally reported them in the Tetons on the refuge. The collars only help if they are over them. Then of course the gunners have to be able to shoot and HIT if they are going to accomplish anything.
    Jeff, I would welcome any FACTS that you can provide that refutes any information that I post.

  76. elfman says:

    Marion:

    Do you realize that elk and wolves co-existed on this continent long before white man came along? Why is it so hard for you to understand this? It is a simple fact. You act as if these wolves came from some faraway planet to destroy our elk populations. There have been wolves in the Ninemile Valley west of Missoula for 15+ years and there are still plenty of elk to go around. This is to say nothing of the deer. My God… they are like rabbits. I do not care if hunters have a few less elk to hunt and that is coming from an elk hunter. Yes, believe it or not, I LOVE hunting and eating elk. However, I would be more than pleased to miss out on some tags if it means I have a shot at seeing a wolf in the wild.

    Marion: Do you believe in God? If so, who do you believe created the wolf and why? Cruel joke on you?

  77. Dave Skinner says:

    Heck, I just want a SHOT at a wolf. I’ve seen enough.
    And Steve, I would love to see an economic analysis of forestry, mining, ranching. To participate in it would be even more fun.
    For example, how is it that state, tribal and private ownerships manage forests at a profit while the feds no longer can? The reason is NOT economic.
    And how much would it really cost to graze a cow if you didn’t have to spend zillions paying ologists for preparing legally bomb-proof EISs?
    And how much would wolves really cost if people could shoot them at will? And would wolves disappear without paid wolfers like we used to have? Darn few people would volunteer, that’s fer shure.
    All that said, I have to laugh at the snarling fit this column sparked. Bill, your premise was flawed. Enough people realize they don’t want the ESA boom lowered by killing “too many” wolves that your warning was superfluous…probably why the discussion wandered away from the topic.

  78. gline says:

    Marion : you are soooo black and white. lumping all wolf lovers or wolf haters for that matter, in one boat. how silly. And your last blog really doesnt say much. I really think you should go back to college (or go to college-not sure if you have been to university) and study wolf biology. (Please dont assume this is sarcasm, as it is not meant to be-I dont know who you are as much as you dont know who I am) You could be out in the field for say, 4 years and learn about wolves from actual experts – biologists. You would perhaps pick up on what is good about them as a species and maybe start to appreciate their intelligence. Just maybe you would start to realize they are predator just like you (human) and you could begin to respect rather than hate. Because right now all you have is a 100 year old prejudice which makes you ignorant. and wimpy. throw away what your grand pappa told you and begin to think for yourself.

  79. Maryann Noyes says:

    How “uncontrollable” wolves have been (just the last two years, previous years similar):
    2006: Cows lost to wolves in the GYE: 184. Wolves killed in retribution: 142…….2007: Cows lost to wolves in GYE: 183. Wolves killed in retribution: 186.

  80. Steve C says:

    Skinner, I and others have posted the numbers concerning mining/ranching/logging etc. so many times on various sites I am frankly not in the mood to dig all the info up again. I am definitely not going to put the effort into preparing an economic report for something as trivial as a blog argument. I guess I am lazy…

    Here is a good recent article on mining welfare:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/356450_joel26.html And i doubt the cost of cleanup (paid for by you and me) are ever included in these analyses.

    FYI: We are all WAY off the original topic of this thread. Probably mostly my fault…

  81. Marion says:

    gline, may I remind you that it was you that felt I should leave my home if you couldn’t manage what I do with it.
    Quite frankly I do not know any wolf haters, I presume that Ron Gillette is one, but I don’t know of others. On the other hand many folks hate what the wolves do, it is heartbreaking to find your dog killed by your house, worse when it is several dogs and a new colt as happened to one family. It gets worse when one is not allowed to do anything about it. And even worse when the cost did come out of one’s own pocket. The family did get paid market rate for a registered pure bred colt.
    A rancher may get paid a thousand dollars for one cow, but the calves of her and others in the pasture have disappeared the smae night, (carried away by the wolves) and may end up costing the family approximately 5-7 thousand to replace out of their own pocket. They are not going to be real happy about wolves being real close.
    For those of you who live away from the wolves and want them, there is no cost, no responsibility, no hardship. It is easy to love wolves without reservation.
    I have a college education, as a matter of fact as many others here know, I am a registered nurse and certified nurse midwife. It does not take a college education to realize that anytime you have a very controversial situation as the wolves are, that controversy is going to be exagerated when all of the benefits are on one side and all of the cost and problems are on the other side.
    If you stop to think, there is absolutely no downside or problem or cost to those who want wolves, so there can never be too many. On the other hand the costs and losses can be overwhelming to those who had the wolves forced on them, and there is absolutely no benefit.

  82. Steve C says:

    Once again, Marion, why is the situation so special and dire when compared to the wolves of the midwest (HUGE cattle area), wolves in canada, and wolves in alaska? Why is there no canadian anti-wolf coalition? Could it be that others who have lived with wolves for much longer have stopped crying “poor me” and have learned to co-exist? I thought cowboys were supposed to be the toughest of the tough but it seems like they do a lot of whining… I highly doubt that when the northeast wolf reintroduction happens all of us new englanders will be pissing and moaning…

  83. Marion says:

    Jeff, according to http://www.Pinedaleonline.com, you are correct hunters did shoot 3 wolves. The 4th was shot by a rancher in his calving pasture. He had called F&G;, but it evidently came back and he shot it.
    Steve, the wolves in Canada were in the wilderness and brought to inhabited areas in this area to live. Problems increase when they were taken away from the wilderness. Look what happened to the fellow in Canada, and there have been other attacks on humans, his was the only fatal one documented recently.
    Why do you think Alaska is willing to take the heat of enviros threatening boycotts etc and going ahead with areal hunting of the wolves, it si becaue the wolves are decimating the caribou, and the natives are unable to hunt enough for food.
    Why were the wolves removed from where you live?

  84. gline says:

    actually marion, Alaskan voters have voted the wolf aerial hunting down twice. the republican conservative governors dont listen to the majority of Alaskans..which evidently were not the small amount of people that wanted the wolves dead.
    wolves do not decimate elk populations. otherwise you would have never seen an Elk …read the statistics. We have an overabundance of Elk here in Montana so much so they are thinking about birth contol…

  85. gline says:

    “A rancher may get paid a thousand dollars for one cow, but the calves of her and others in the pasture have disappeared the smae night, (carried away by the wolves) and may end up costing the family approximately 5-7 thousand to replace out of their own pocket”
    Actually marion ranchers have been compensated thousands of dollars by DOW for loss – on confirmed cases. We all know there are ranchers/people that will blame a wolf any chance they get, even if it is a neighbor’s dog, I have seen the fake reports. that is why unfortunately, the reports need to confirmed kills by a wolf, not anything else, to be compensated.

  86. Rose Mary says:

    Yes, Bill, I did confirm that you can not delete comments but it is not correct to say that NewWest.Net doesn’t remove those that make personal attacks like those made against Marion ~ and I thank Courtney for doing so. As they reappear maybe YOU will keep her posted?

    I hope you welcome and respect Marion’s comments as you say you do. I sure agree with what she has to say but that does not mean you have to … “respect” being the key word here me-thinks. She has earned and deserves that … and MORE!

    I think we are all very much aware that our voices agreeing with Marion are in the minority on New West but it IS important those voices be heard without the abuse.

    Common Sense may NOT be dead forever you know!!!

    WE may be The New West personified and you just haven’t figured that one out yet!!!

    Since I do not personally have to deal with The Wolves ~ YET! ~ maybe I should start an Abused Wolf Rescue Operation and adopt them out ~ whacha think?

    All you guys that want a dozen or two of ‘em to love ~ and FEED ~ raise your (good) hand and I’ll see what I can do to help!!!

  87. Steve C says:

    There are wolf livestock conflicts in canada as well. As there are in the great lakes region, as there are coyote livestock conflicts in the east. I could go on and on. Your people are not a uniquely oppressed people as you would have us all believe. I really can’t keep beating my head against a wall anymore on this… I am going to believe what all that I have read and learned has lead me to believe and you are going to believe your propaganda no matter what. Using this “poor me” routine over and over doesnt change any opinions. It just pisses people off.

  88. gline says:

    “losses can be overwhelming to those who had the wolves forced on them, and there is absolutely no benefit.”

    thats the point right there Marion – “wolves forced on them.” you hate them because you feel they were forced on you. In reality the ESA brought back an endangered species that was wrongly poisoned, trapped, snared, baited, and shot almost to extinction. Were looking at round II now thanks to ignorants like you. Glad you have a nursing degree but that has nothing to do with wildlife biology. The ESA was created by Congress, which is representative of the people of this country. Not one small state in the west. I live in the west, I live near them and I want them here. It pains me to know they will be exterminated again. for what? pure ignorance.

  89. Steve C says:

    The “me me me” thing is the issue here. The wolf was restored to the entire area, not just wyoming. And it should be restored everywhere it could survive. I don’t understand how the jackson elk herd can be at a record high if wolves are killing them all. I honestly hope that people can’t help their “trigger itch” and federal control remains until the wolf can spread to neighboring/more safe states.

  90. Marion says:

    gline, this is the last time I will answer a post to you if you are going to be nasty, I present the facts. Why do you not want to hear our side of the story? Ed Bangs has confirmed that 7-9 head of livestock is lost for every one that is confirmed. The cost for that 7-9 head comes from the pocket of individual families, that is a fact. There are reasons for this, baby animals are frequently packed away to the den, so no proof. If an animal is completely eaten, no matter how many tracks are around, it can be declared probably at most (half value). confirmation means enough of the body tissues, not just bones, to diagnose the extreme trauma to the animal that is indicative of a wolf kill. Summers the body may deeriorate if it is too far from the house and not found for a day or so, and again the extreme trauma cannot be confirmed.
    An example of that a few years ago was a herd of 33 sheep in a pasture that were found all dead several days after being killed, one body was in water and protected enough from the effects of the sun to be confirmed, another was a probable. The other 31 came out of the ranchers pocket, although it was clear all were killed at the same time.
    Do NOT call me a liar, I do NOT know any wolf haters, I do know a lot of folks that hate what they do to animals.
    Before you talk about our responsibilities protecting ourselves and our property, please remember the wolves were brought here to do EXACTLY what they are doing.
    Aside from the private property that is destroyed by the willful introduction of Canadian wolves, look at the wildlife, over half of the moose are gone in the Tetons, they are almost gone in Yellowstoen, you’re more likely to see a grizzly than a moose now. The northern elk herd was over 19,000 they year before the wolves were hauled in, there were 6000 this year and only 2,000 of those left inside of Yellowstone.

  91. Steve C says:

    I asked you about the record jackson herd. Not the northern herd. Way to deflect.

  92. elfman says:

    It is interesting all this talk about “respecting” what others have to say on this subject. Who says I have to respect what Marion says?! The only thing I respect is her RIGHT to speak but she does not inherently deserve my respect for what she actually says. This is like saying I should respect someone’s misguided opinion that African Americans are an inferior race. No, I do not respect such talk in the least though I do recognize and respect the rights granted to us all under the first amendment. God Bless America for that.

    I have great disrespect and disdain for almost everything that Marion has to say here because it is all spawned out of willful ignorance and a sense of entitlement on her part. Marion appears to have a great disrespect for God and his creations which, like it or not, INCLUDE the wolf! You can say I am attacking her if you wish. However, I “respectfully” disagree.

  93. Craig Moore says:

    Elf, perhaps its respectful to our hosts to abide by their wishes as per their Terms of Service. Specifically, see:

    3.1 Posting. You acknowledge and agree not to not use, display, distribute, submit, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. You agree that you shall not submit any Content that:

    (f) is patently offensive to the New West online community, such as Content that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;

    (g) harasses or harms, or advocates the harassment or harming of another person;

  94. elfman says:

    Craig – absolutely! I do not see where my previous post violates this policy in any way, shape or form. There is nothing in New West’s policy that requires me to “respect” what others have to say per se… and, again, I do not respect what Marion has to say (at least to date). I only respect her right to speak.

    (f) is a no brainer. (g) I suppose you could argue some type of harassment but that would be pretty far fetched. I could make the same weak argument about everything she says here. I have only pointed out the difference between respecting someone’s rights versus respecting their actual opinion. If I said “I believe black people are inferior to white people” [and, by the way, I most certainly do not] would you respect my sick and twisted opinion or would you simply respect my 1st amendment rights?

  95. elfman says:

    Interesting. For kicks, I just looked up the definition of “respect”. Naturally, it has multiple definitions. I have always operated under one of them which is “to hold in esteem and honor” and this is exactly what I do NOT have for Marion’s opinions espoused herein. Another definition, however, is as follows: “deference to a right… or someone… considered to have certain rights…” So, in regard to the latter I suppose I do have “respect” for her opinions stated herein but only insofar as she has the right to state them. In regard to the former I think I have made myself pretty clear. She has not earned this kind of respect at all with me.

  96. Craig Moore says:

    Elf, my points are the following:

    1. Bill, has kindly asked that we focus on issues are forego personal attacks

    2. I have seen NewWest step in and rap people on the knuckles and remove their comments they become personally abusive.

    I think we are all capable of honoring #1 and avoiding #2.

    By the way I don’t think you have any 1st Amendment rights here. I’ve heard tell only the govmint can impinge those rights and give you cause to poke them in the eye for such infringement. Private parties can shut any of us down for no reason at all if they so wish especially if we piss them off by failing to honor #1 and triggering #2 with an itchy keyboard finger.

  97. Craig Moore says:

    Should be “and” not “are” in #!. Should be a “when” between “comments” and “they” in #2.

  98. elfman says:

    Craig – the issue of this article has been beaten to death here. Like any blog we all digress. No need to single me out. New West trolls with these topics and I understand why… It keeps the blood going. Why do you think at least once a week we see articles come out on climate change and wolves? They know what the result is: Blog blog bloggity blog blog. What do you know? There is a new climate change article out today!

    I am not concerned with being “rapped on the knuckles”. If New West wishes to remove my comments they are free to do so but, in this case, it will clearly NOT be because I violated any policy (at least not the one you have stated above). If I am shut down for #1 then every single other post herein that does not directly address the 30 day loophole referenced in the above article should also be removed if fairness is an objective of the publication.

    You are absolutely correct in stating that my first amendment rights do not guarantee my publication here. My invoking the 1st amendment was only to point out that I do recognize Marion’s right to have and express an opinion from the mountaintop. The 1st amendment (nor New West policy) does not require me to agree with or respect (in regard to the “honor” definition) her opinion any more than I am required to respect a racist’s.

  99. Mr. Twister says:

    This endless drivel is a good example of what happens when poor journalism written to do nothing more than insite controversy is allowed to run on and on. Maybe this one will go to 200, eh Bill.

  100. Steve C says:

    This “endless drivel” as you like to put it is the purpose of a blog such as this. The ideas are flowing and we all get to debate with points of view we might otherwise not have the opportunity to face.

    Elfman, I agree. “Respect” comes in many forms. I have seen Marion hijack every thread on the sinapu blog and steer it towards her tired wolf rhetoric whether or not the original story was even about wolves. She also did the same thing at ralph maughn’s blog before she got herself banned for posting under multiple names. You might say that she lacks “respect” for those with whom she disagrees.

  101. Marion says:

    Actually SteveC I was banned from Ralph’s blog, from the first. He sees wolves as a wonderful way to rid the world of ranchers. I see them as problems to deal with.
    It may make you uncomfortable to have anyone post the problems that those who have to deal with wolves actually have, but sorry, you only have to hear about them, real people have to deal with them.
    What I have posted is facts, not opinion, there is no reason to go into it further, the facts are there for anyone to face if they are willing to.

  102. Linda m. says:

    As an unpaid advocate for biodiversity, I try to raise awareness about all wildlife which includes plants, insects, wolves and fish. Ranchers can be good stewards of the land, but, some members within that community make it difficult to support their land right issues when there are extremist viewpoints that are vented in the public forum. If we work together we can protect the land.

    The wolves deserve respect for the role they play within native ecosystems. Yes, ecosystems are not stable, but that is not a good rationalization for one species to eliminate another. I support certain subsidies for people that make a living off the land, but when those subsidies are viewed as entitlements, then that is not in the best interest of the other Americans who are stakeholders in our national, natural, heritage. Reintroductions restore the balance. Unnessary wolf killing will set back the cooperative efforts that the ranching/farming/environmental/oil and gas interests have been slowly cultivating. I for one would welcome the wolf back to Colorado. Should I even dream about seeing the return of the grizzly??

  103. gline says:

    Ahhh its nice to have the truth about Marion’s history with Ralph Maughn’s blog! doesn’t surprize me a bit. I was wondering why she does not post there if she is such an anti wolf advocate. that would be the place to really be in the front lines!

    your logic is very strange marion. why would someone see wolves as a way to rid the world of ranchers? why would someone want rid the world of ranchers??? for fun? The issue is not about portecting ranchers. It is about protecting the remaining wildlife we have as opposed to continuing overgrazed pasture, monocultural forests and ruined riparian areas due to overgrazing. What you post is purely your opinion…. which is skewed. you are not in a rational world at all.

  104. gline says:

    marion: I’m nasty and you are not?? give me a break! do you realize 3 long paragraphs devoted to the specifics on aerial gunning a species is rude and disgusting??? wake up please.

  105. gline says:

    Thank you Linda M for a mature, informational blog. I appreciate that very much. The REINTROduction of the wolf that started in the 70s, really, has been a long haul. Hundreds of meetings with biological experts, ranchers, communites before they were REintroduced. One particular lawsuit I can think of before the reintroduction where ranchers,farm bureau and conservationists sued the govt for different reasons, but were consolidated as parties. I think the conservationists in the beginning felt they had to give in to the hostile ranching community with the lethal control measure just to get the wolf “on the table”. This program began with lethal control and is ending with it. Its embarrassing to know your country condones extinction of a species out of ignorance.

  106. Greg says:

    Bearbait and Adam spanked this blog, way to go you to. I am not to worried about wolves getting wiped out by a few hunters. It is impossible in the first place, the wolf hunts at night, uses timber and brush for cover, and when a hunter has success killing one wolf, well those other wolves hangin there see it and learn to avoid the hunters big time. And In Idaho to go out and poach a wolf is against the law, just like out of season deer or elk, 2-3 year loss of license probably a $5,000.00 fine and even jail. Hunting wolves will be very difficult, what do you wolf lovers think, your wolfie is stupid or something? Not only do you people attempt to discredit rural people living out in the Rockies as some neanderthal blokes, you discredit your wolf as well. Most violaters of wild life I have seen, are city people who come out to hunt, tossing out their bear and pop cans and candy bar wrappers on the ground, shooting up fence posts and mail boxes and signs, and then you dump us into that mix. I have even been shot at out here. I see flatlanders poaching beef, elk, deer. Guess what wolfie lover, this hunter calls the police, gets a license plate #, I have even attempted fingerprints from beer cans as well. This hunter picks up refrigerators, beds, washers, dryers, personal garbage, I have even cleaned up oil changes out here before where some retard just drained it onto the ground and even left the olf filter lying there and the empty new oil cans and box, more than once, I dug up the dirt soaked with oil and put it in a bucket and remove it. I do not ever notice any of you tree huggers out here helping me either. I have been trying to sneak on this big LOBO Wolf near here to, with my camera and I have never got even close enough to him to have shot him with a gun. You folks and this author of this article are paranoid.

    Simple solution in my mind would be allow the hunts of wolves to go forward, and make it a felony to poach any animal out of season, or in season. Then those fools that do ignore fair play and ethical hunting pratices get gone, first offenders could lose the right to hunt for 5 years, second time your out for ten, third time is the charm, your gone for good, no more hunting period in any state. I wonder why no one is asking for this solution. The fines could be extensive as well. Then your stupid wolf hater neanderthal littering morons would get thinned out, and you would notice that those types are few in the first place, kinda funny to as when there is a big bust here, guess what hunterhaters, it is never one of us rural people living here, it some out of state city bum from your neck of the town.

  107. Craig Moore says:

    Elf, it was not my intent to single you out. I thought I was merely responding to your comment about Marion.

  108. Frank N says:

    Marion, Marion, Marion. Wolves were reintroduced in the Northern Rockies because there was suitable habitat. They were not introduced into urban areas and city parks. Nor were they introduced onto anyone’s ranch. They were introduced into suitable wilderness areas. As the population grew some have migrated out of those areas.
    Now, having said that, many of the states you mention have plenty of suitable wolf habitat. Some have even expressed a desire that wolves migrate there (made extremely difficult by the wolf management plans put in place by W, M and I). The numbers that you mention may, in fact, be a little low. California, for example, which has more wilderness than any state outside of Alaska.
    Suggesting wolves in Washington, DC is kind of like suggesting cows in your living room.

  109. Steve C says:

    The states she mentioned are an april fool’s joke. Check out the link.

  110. Rose Mary says:

    Yes, I also appreciated your comments, Linda m. ~ which is not said to imply agreement with them ~ only to value your seeming honesty in stating who you are ~ or might be, at least ~ when you describe yourself as “an unpaid advocate” for your opinions. Each of us might make assumptions re your comments that are incorrect, of course, but when you tie them to your closing statement declaring “I for one would welcome the wolf back to Colorado.” my first guess would be that you are either living in Boulder or a proponent of many opinions emitted from that neck of the woods?

    If my assumption is accurate then it would be followed by a second assumption: that you would have the funds to actually invest in personal property that might be encumbered by any/all of the “… plants, insects, wolves and fish …” that call on you as an advocate of them? Knowing the land use curtailments of the Boulder area that have succeeded in structuring the area to a high-income living units ONLY is the basis for my assumption in that regard and my only side-notation would be that if this assumption is accurate then an additional assumption might be that you could financially afford a personal financial investment in your areas of personal advocacy.

    I know that might sure be WRONG in every regard. Is it?

    I ask only to fully understand if your comment saying “If we work together we can protect the land.” has anything to do with your own personal financial investment in the land you strive to “protect”. Am I correct in assuming you have NO such investment?

    And in an attempt not to single you out for any reason (since I have NO such reason to do so), this is also a question I would love to ask every one who has posted their expectations and demands on this page.

    Or, to put it on a more understandable level, perhaps:

    Just how many of you all HAVE put your money where your mouth is? (Above and/or beyond those funds that every citizen contributes via the IRS and the federal government at large.)

    Inquiring Minds Want To Know!!!

  111. elfman says:

    Marion and Rose Mary : I am a Montanan living in the country on my own 40 acres. I do have some livestock (not many animals obviously with only 40 acres but I do have some regardless) though I do not make my living from them. Am I in support of wolves and their right to exist here among us? Hell yes! Have I put my money where my mouth is? Hell yes. Be careful with all your bold assumptions. The attempt to paint anyone who loves wolves as some kind of city slicker is patently offensive and just plain wrong. Marion… I ask you AGAIN… Do you believe in God? If so, why on earth do you think God created them? I cannot wait to hear your explanation.

    Greg: You really hate city folk, don’t you? It is a shame for you to use that hatred to attempt to pin littering and unethical hunting on city people. I have hunted amidst all kinds of people as well and in my personal experience the littering fools and slob hunters that one finds out there in the woods are mostly NOT from the city. They are your average run of the mill idiotic redneck who did not have parents that instilled any sense of responsibility. Not many city folk even know how to change their own oil so it is pretty bold of you to convict all the city folks for the oil changes you have cleaned up without really knowing who did this. Also, I hate to give you any bright ideas but if you want to kill a wolf try baiting them in with a carcass. They will be there if they are around.

  112. bearbait says:

    The Elfman Solution…

    Brilliant. Baiting wolves into carcasses. Like the local pack does not know where the ranch or dairy bone pile is right now. But a brilliant idea for the growing national unwanted horse surplus. Now that horses can’t be slaughtered for meat, and a bill prohibiting their export to either Mexico or Canada for slaughter, to service the horse meat market in Belgium and France, is somewhere in the Congressional bill bucket brigade, what to do with old, sick, lame, unwanted horses is a growing problem. The answer right now, it to hire a backhoe, dig a hole x distance from any water resource, y deep, lead said horse (if mobile) next to hole, and put a bullet in its brain. If the horse dies of natural causes, you will need the backhoe to dig the hole and drag the horse to the horsey graveyard.

    So in wolf country, it might just be a lot better deal to have a ranch bone pile and a public lands bone pile area. Having areas on public lands (it is the public, of course, who do not want horses to be slaughtered for food, and thus have put extreme limits on humane treatment of unwanted or in serious disrepair horses), located at convenient distances from urban areas, for the dumping of dead horses to feed wolves and grizz might kill two birds with one stone. It would be a commercial enterprise, replete with permits and fees, in an area not open to the public, and the fees can be used to supplement the loss of logging and grazing income. In the event of a wildland use fire, all that new barbeque will be essential to keeping the local predators in food and perhaps prevent any dislocations due to a paucity of food.

    The haulers should be charged an amount per dead horse mile for road use, an amount per horse for bone dispersal and law enforcement, and all the trucks should be equipped with a fire extinguisher, axe and shovel, plus radio communication.

    The Elfman Solution. Great ideas are borne of informed discussion by an educated public. Thank you Elfman, for the insight and inspiration for a grand solution how to keep wolves fed in the wildlands, and that horse grandpa gave Missy to keep her off boys for another two years a place to finally lay its head in eternal sleep, knowing his life was not in vain. The Elfman Solution.

  113. Greg says:

    No I hate litter bugs, to date those busted litter bugs were from town/city. I think you better keep in mind ELF that Jeff Foxworthy is purely entertainment and you should try not to confuse his jokes with reality. I get tired of doing the clean up after lazy slobs, but some one in America needs to be responsible so I keep picking up trash, because I grew up here and love the land. That bait idea may work, Ive seen wolves eating on dead horses and road killed elk. But it could be illegal. I got some close up shots one day last summer though from my horse in the Sawtooths, six wolves at about 40 yards. I reckon I know about baiting since Ive bearbaited a time or two. ha ha ha. Hey elfman, do you keep your neck covered in summer, just wondering, cause I do.

  114. Jay Kanta says:

    Apologies are in order for the author of this blog post.

    http://voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_339451

    Although given the usual suspects in this thread, I don’t believe any apologies will be forthcoming.

  115. elfman says:

    Greg: Jeff Foxworthy is entertainment yes but his jokes are based on some very real stereotypes (for which, of course, there are exceptions like always). Again, do not assume you know who you are talking to here. I have CONSIDERABLE experience with rednecks AND good country folk having lived in different rural areas across this country. I have also lived in cities as well for awhile. You are fooling yourself if you think that it is only the city folk that litter. I have personally witnessed on countless occasions redneck morons throwing their beer bottles in the lake, leaving their empty styrofoam containers on the bank while fishing, and throwing their cigarette butts on the ground. Do not assume just because you grew up in the country and learned good values (about not littering) that everyone who else who grows up in the country learned the same as you. Am I suggesting that city people do not litter? No, not at all. I have seen people from the city litter just as well. It is just foolish to try to make the world as black and white as you would have us all believe. The world is full of ___holes.

    Yes, baiting wolves is probably illegal but some who wish to kill wolves are not all that concerned about the legality of the situation. My point was well made by someone else in here who pointed out, with sarcasm, that 100 years ago we managed to get rid of wolves without all the technology we have these days. If the problem gets that far out of hand we are more than capable of controlling them again by necessary means.

    bearbait – cute little diatribe you went on there but far too ridiculous to even comment on.

  116. Steve C says:

    Marion, you can rewrite history all you want. You were not banned on ralph’s site from the beginning. Here is the evidence for all to see…

    http://wolves.wordpress.com/2006/08/26/numerous-wolves-shot-for-killing-cow-calves-in-sublette-county-wy/

  117. Steve C says:

    Marion, to bring this thread full circle I will quote your posting up the top:

    “I cannot imagine how disappointed you are going to be when no wolves are killed. In fact I suspect less than have been killed by Bangs et al.”

    Looks like the little boys were out with their guns over the weekend killing wolves and it also looks like your ability to predict the future is about as foggy as your recollection of the past.

    I hope these rednecks completely blow it and the wolf is relisted…

  118. gespatial says:

    Boulder County is an example of a community that provided financial incentives to landowners to keep good ag and forest lands in production.

    The voters have endorsed the approach with four different ballot measures over the past 30 years.

    There is an overview of the program and result at:

    http://www.spatialinterest.info/trading_sense.html

    The story title is A Boulder Approach to Open Space.

  119. Jay Kanta says:

    Three known wolf kills in Wyoming just this weekend, with no known quantity of unreported or unfound wolf kills.

    However the high number of reported “wolf hunters” throughout the state should be an indication that many more were killed or wounded.

    And yet the Wyoming elk herd continues to be afflicted with chronic wasting disease, something which only the wolves can cure entirely….

    I’m still watching for that apology.

  120. Steve C says:

    I am sure the “enviros” will be blamed somehow if the elk population crashes from disease…

  121. Ann says:

    I’m late to this one, but I’m sure it’s not the only thing in my life I will be or have been late to.

    I for one live ‘among’ the wolves, Grizzly, Bison, etc. My father raised me to learn to live WITH the wildlife. That is what I have been doing for the over 50 years I’ve been on this planet. For one thing, I’m far from the ‘norm’ I am a care-giver for my mother, so that gives me the opportunity to stay home and keep an eye on my livestock pretty much all the time. Agreed reintroducing the wolf was done a little in haste. They should have thought things through a little more but what is done is done. In my lifetime on the West side of the Park, we have had to ‘dispatch’ ONE rogue Grizzly,
    That was back in the late ’70’s, and NO it wasn’t because they had closed the garbage dumps.
    That was the only cattle killer (confirmed) other than humans ‘rustling’ that we had up here. IF I were to see a wolf in close proximity, i.e. in the same pasture as… I would shoot AT it, and make sure it knew what and where it came from. Depending on the circumstances that the wolf does, would depend on how many times it got shot AT. I would NOT hesitate, to ‘take it out’ if it were necessary, as to reporting it again that would depend.
    Seems to me that Ranchers, that are ‘in’ the area of Wolves could handle the problem in the same manner, and have the ‘authorities’ issue ‘permits’ or whatever, so they know how many ‘permits’ are out, keep a tally on how many wolves NEED to be killed, are killed, etc. Let the individual state handle their individual Ranches, and see how things pan out before opening up a “land-rush’ ie wolf killing field.
    Wolves need to learn that ‘Old’ McDonalds farm is NOT quite as good as going out and getting something a little ‘safer’.

  122. Marion says:

    Jay, you are wrong, the elk herds have not had any CWD. Deer have, brought from northern Colorado where a college researcher inadvertantly released an infected deer some years ago. How it is transmitted is a question since it seems to show up in far flung areas.
    I would really appreciate it if you would provide documentation of wolves curing or preventing CWD….or for that matter affecting it in anyway.
    What did you want an apology for Jay? Because some wolves were killed this weekend legally?

  123. elfman says:

    Marion… Believe in God? Care to answer my question as to why God, if you believe in him/her, would create such an animal if he did not intend it to live here?

  124. Matt M says:

    I’ve heard a lot of talk about elk herds declining because of wolves. However, pronghorn are increasing in numbers because of wolves. Guess we won’t hear the wolf haters talking about that.

  125. Marion says:

    I seriously doubt that the 3 wolves will impact the overall numbers, because for one thing probably none of them were counted, even the one with a collar was thought to be dead.
    I wish they had not killed the wolves, other than the one after the cows, mostly to keep the wolf people from going balistic. The wolf in the cattle had to be killed, he most assuredly would have killed cows sooner or later.
    I aplogize to anyone who feels I should apologize for the 2 dead wolves. teh other was jsut killed by a person defending his property.

  126. elfman says:

    Marion: Again, do you believe in God? If so, why are these “awful” creatures here?

  127. Marion says:

    elfman, I most certainly do believe in God, but I was not told why He created wolves, rattlesnakes, other poisonous snakes, poisonous spiders, WNV carrying mosquitoes, flies, or a myriad of other species that I don’t care for. He did not tell me.
    I do suspect He is more distressed over the human babies that were killed today in the name of “choice”.
    MattM, before you lose too much sleep worrying about the wolves that will not protect the pronghorns, please note that the researcher that brought that revelation, also found that no jackrabbits had been seen inside of Yellowstone since 1991. At least they hadn’t been seen until all of the biologists working in the park started calling him about all of them that are seen on a regular basis, including the day his “no bunny” story was published….peer reviewed I believe, but obviously not by local biologists.
    Now if you are longing to see antelope, drive along I-80 across southern Wyoming. You’re not likely to see a wolf, maybe a few coyotes, but lots of antelope.

  128. Rose Mary says:

    NO, “elfman” … bearbait’s “cute little diatribe”, as you put it, is NOT “far too ridiculous to even comment on”.

    And it ain’t no April Fool’s Day joke either.

    But it sure very well may be far too REAL for those who store their heads somewhere beyond the light of day to fully understand or relate to.

    Obviously you haven’t kept up with the State of the Union address re horses in latter day life and/or the so-called-“successes” of the so-called-“Humane Society” ~ which can now be anointed without doubt as the most INHUMANE Society on the face of this earth.

    If you don’t see any salvation in bearbait’s suggestions, maybe you’d like to join up with the so-called-“horse mafia” who are just about to be confronted with the largest increase in so-called-“feral horses” this Nation has ever seen. Wait till that bill arrives in your mailbox!

    Of course, judging from the vile hatred of all domestic livestock that I see spewed all over this website, watching the repositioning of The Domestic Horse to The Feral Horse to The Starving Horse to The Wolf’s Gut might be the “Make My Day” event of the year for a bunch of you who seem to think that All Wild is better than Any Domestic as far as the eye can see.

    Since I own about 75 of those Domestic Mamas who have produced those horses grandpa gave Missy to keep her off boys for another two years who all might well be headed down that trail in the very near future to find that place to finally lay their heads in eternal sleep, at peace in death, they know and I will know their lives were not in vain because they will have given new life to the INHUMANE Society and the All Wild Folks who can then look around and smile at a job well done ~ perhaps through the window of a townhouse that will follow in their wake?

    The Elfman Solution? Is that a tax deductible conduit for donations? Will bones be recycled through the guts of pine beetles? ~ raked into a stack and ground up for gardens? ~ or just left as objects of Historic Art in honor of the wide-spread hatred for Any Domestic by the All Wild Folks?

  129. elfman says:

    Marion: I must say that I am pleasantly surprised to see that you have answered my question. I would invite you to ponder the question as to why God put these creatures (wolves, mosquitoes and everything in between) here. It seems awfully audacious to assume he placed them here to be exterminated by us. Nature is an intricate web well beyond our full understanding even in today’s day and age. To believe in God and then insult him by advocating wiping his creations, whether they be human babies or wolves, from the face of the earth seems awfully strange. Everything serves a purpose whether we know what that purpose is or not.

  130. elfman says:

    Rose Mary: You have said nothing to convince me that Bearbait’s diatribe is worth commenting on. Therefore, I do not have much to say on the subject. I will say, however, that I never suggested any kind of “solution” with regard to horses, etc. I only said that if one wants to kill a wolf they can be baited… just like bears.

    By the way, I would love to hear about your beliefs (or not) in God and what YOUR suspicion is as to why God would put these creatures here (if you believe in God). Perhaps you are an aetheist?

  131. Craig Moore says:

    Elf, you wrote: “Everything serves a purpose whether we know what that purpose is or not.”

    I take it that you find a spiritual acceptance in having wolves shot. Personally, I am revolted by it. I could shoot coyotes all day long, but I can’t accept shooting wolves.

    ;>)

  132. Steve C says:

    Why can you shoot coyotes all day long but not wolves? Socially they are very similar.

  133. matt m says:

    Thank God for abortion. I wish this nation aborted twice as many, and if we could get latin American and Africa on board, we could make serious headway into cleaning up the air, water, and restoring endangered species.

  134. elfman says:

    Craig: Hmmm…. I think you misunderstood me or you are making a joke that I am missing for some reason.

    Matt m: Abortion is an awful process but I understand your point. The rate at which humans are choosing to reproduce is killing the earth. People really need to stop having babies. 6+ billion and counting. It has DOUBLED in the last 50 years. This is truly sickening.

  135. Dave Skinner says:

    You’ve tied YOUR tubes, I hope, elf and matt M?
    As for those Sublette County wolf getters, yay for them, hurray and leave me some. I guess from now until forever, some reporter will call WY DFG asking for the “show and tell” report…especially come trophy season.
    Three? Think of all the work saved by not having the agency people trot out and do the same thing. Snrk. I am really looking forward to the emotionalistic crybabying and crosshairs-encrusted fundraising screeds my spies will be forwarding.

  136. Matt says:

    Someone commented that wolves are dangerous to animals and to people and thus they should be removed or hunted in order to control their numbers. I have several questions then:
    Why not remove all the mountain lions?
    Why not remove all the bears?
    These animals are both dangerous and kill livestock and other game. What is wrong with a regulated, licensed wolf hunt (not a free-for-all hunt)?
    Also, if those of you out there are using the logic of “we can’t safely go out in the woods anymore because of the wolves; they may kill my pet”; get real, what about mountain lions, bears, moose, etc. What about all the traps that have been set; don’t they also take a toll on pets? There are more things out there in the wild that could hurt you or your pets/livestock that have been around for longer than the recently reintroduced wolves!
    I think that using the tired excuse of fear is played out.

  137. Courtney Lowery says:

    Hi folks,

    Comments that violate our terms of service by engaging in personal attacks have been and will be removed in this thread. If you’re unwilling to engage in civil discourse, I ask that you take your comments elsewhere.

    Keep it clean.

  138. elfman says:

    Dave:

    No, I have not had my tubes tied and I do not plan to because my significant other is unable to have children. I do have one child, however, and I always planned to do my part in reducing the world’s population by limiting myself to one. I hope others will try to do the same because virtually all the world’s problems come down to one thing… overpopulation. I should hope we could agree on this. It is very akin to the carrying capacity of a ranch. If you overstock and overgraze you will kill your land. We are killing the earth.

  139. Matt M says:

    I plan on having my tubes tied after I have my one child. The world is so damn overpopulated it’s crazy. Thanks to all the bible thumpers and others who practice those crazy religions.

    Those of you that don’t believe overpopulation is a problem should go ahead and sell all your hunting gear because there will not be any wildlife or land left in the near future.

  140. Rose Mary says:

    Whoooooa right NOW!!! What DO I hear?
    Surely it can’t be so!!!
    Surely “enviros” don’t believe
    It’s PEOPLE makes us “grow”?!!?

    So are you wolf-ers leadin’ now
    Right down the “smart growth” trails??!!
    Is there ONE chance you might have noticed
    REASON “Growth” prevails??!!

    And all this time I’ve been believin’
    RANCHERS caused that sin!!!
    Where have you wolf-ers all been hidin’?
    WHERE have you all been??!

    ‘Cause up till now I’ve been misled
    By those who are soooooooo sure
    There’d be “NO Growth” if money grubbin’
    Ranchers weren’t the burr!!!

    So are you REALLY tellin’ me
    That money grubbin’ folks
    Ain’t ALL the problem of ALL sins
    So often bashed by jokes??!

    Go figure … says I now to me …
    … who’da EVER thought
    The lovers of the wolves would FINALLY
    Have a thought I’ve sought??!!!

    On land-use pages can I quote
    Your comments posted here?
    ‘Cause surely ALL “enviros” would
    Accept YOUR words so clear!!!

  141. gline says:

    Your just a tad emtional Rose mary – need some therapy?? for your anger issues?

  142. elfman says:

    Rose Mary: Your post is unclear… do you believe in God or not?

  143. gline says:

    I agree on pressing this point elfman. God would never do this killing to one of his own.. what are you waiting for Rosemary? we’d like an answer.

  144. Rose Mary says:

    Naw, “gline” … it ain’t anger … just another ramblin’ from another one of those dumb broads that you love to hate as you continue attackin’ ‘em on a site like this.

    But thanks much for your “concern” … what more could a girl want, I says to myself says I.

  145. elfman says:

    Rose Mary: I ask again… do you believe in God?

  146. gline says:

    You seem to be the one attacking rose mary … I really think you need some therapy. you dont know what you are talking about. Your poem above is very bizarre.
    how about answering elmans question: do you believe in God?

  147. gline says:

    sorry elfman -typo on my part.

  148. gline says:

    To add to the full circle Steve C, I must copy and paste the rest of this from Ralph’s site. It is just too good.

    “…It does seem unamerican to harrass and endanger folks in their own homes then charge them for it.”

    “Interested” is Marion Dickinson. She is spamming (posting under more than one name). She is hereby banned from this group. Ralph

    Now can I call you a liar Marion? I believe so….

  149. Rose Mary says:

    Gee, “gline” … thanks again for your continuing “concern” … what more could a girl want, I says to myself again says I.

    Uh oh … there you go again … is it alright if I share some of your “concern” for me with Marion?

    There is enough to share, I’m sure.

    Here ya go, Marion … consider yourself gifted with “concern” from “gline” ~ my treat.

    What good is having such a nice gift without being able to share it!

    Thanks, “gline” … considered it shared on your behalf.

    Now go to bed and hopefully tomorrow you won’t get up on the wrong side of the bed again. Who knows! You may even bump into a dumb broad you actually like someday!

  150. gline says:

    hello?
    Rosemary: I am not concerned for you. believe me. and your personal attacks may just get you kicked off this site like Marion’s jet off of Ralphs.
    To take you back to the point of this blog: wolves. Not you.
    Maybe you people should start to think about other things besides yourselves.
    Hey: so do you believe in God?

  151. Marion says:

    Boy, I didn’t realize that it should upset folks that I feel so strongly that the side of those who had the wolves imposed on them and their private property destroyed, should not be allowed to have a voice. I wasn’t able to post on Ralph’s site under my name, so I attempted to post under an assumed name and with a hotmail email. I didn’t know enough about computers to realize the computer address is what shows up.
    Can any of you explain why you feel that “our side” of the situation should be kept silent?
    “Your side” gets to put a lot of wolves here, we have to pay the costs of taking care of them, we are the ones that lose private property to them, we have to deal with them, we are the ones that have to hire extra help our of our pockets to try to protect our livestock from them. You get to enjoy them and tell us what we have to do, and that is the only side you want the general public to know?

  152. Ann says:

    Marion;
    In other words, the cattle rancher is the ONLY private property owner, whose rights should count? What about the Private Property land owners whose rights are ignored in the name of the Livestock industry? For instance most all the people and land owners on the Horse Butte that want the Department of Livestock to stay off of because there is no livestock. YET they Department of Livestock IGNORES those rights and tramples, and destroys fences and vegetation in the name of cattle that are no where near the place?

    I don’t agree with an all out war against the wolf any more than I condone the all out war against the Bison. Numbers need to be kept in check, but not by a bunch of gun happy wolf hating fanatics. And with no concern or consideration of the eventual outcome.
    Small steps need to be taken and what the Rancher did by shooting that wolf that was ON his property, and within his cattle, is a GOOD first step. But NOT the ‘hillbilly’ type “I’m gunna go kill every dam wolf I see because……….”
    This is NOT a Bison post, so I will try to keep my feelings of that issue out of here, but there IS a similarity to the two.

  153. Ann says:

    I guess what I’m saying is; If it’s MY property, and I don’t care if wildlife enter it, because I like wildlife, that is why I live where I live, THEN my property rights should be accepted as much as the livestock owner. The animal should be left alone as long as it is on property that has no risk of it affecting. When, such time that animal DOES enter the ‘occupied’ pasture, THEN do what you must, but not until.
    If there is a risk to something you have on YOUR property, and you border MY property, the State of Montana has a ‘Fence to keep out’ law that should be applied.
    HENCE FENCE out the ‘pest’ ‘perpetrator’ as a first step, and when that is breeched go to step 2. Again there is NO need for an all out war against the WILDLIFE.

  154. Jay Kanta says:

    Wolves are now a part of Idaho. Like it or not. To ignore every fact and argue based on emotional and/or anecdotal evidence only is a sign of a troll with nothing more than personal feelings and/or vendettas to use as a club to beat others with. That is a sure sign of a troll.

    Now I’ve tried to keep this as un-personal as possible, because there are almost a half a dozen offenders on this post alone that argue from an entirely fact-free position and know only of wolves what the other hunters and ranchers tell them. They ignore every amount of data put forth, even shoving aside their own comments in their emotional post spamming.

    Instead of arguing from these fact free positions, I would suggest that anti-wolf people read some information on wolves, understand their ability to reduce diseased animals from the herd, and understand that killing them just to brag about it or because of a sense of personal vengeance is rather juvenile. If that is too difficult, then I have to wonder why you’re in this conversation in the first place.

  155. Marion says:

    Ok, Jay, let’s assume that I know nothing about wolves, so please provide me with links to studies showing the reduction of diseases by wolves. Interestingly enough, what tests ahve been done on the elk in and around Yellowstone seem to show some INCREASE in brucellosis since the wolves came. Here’s a link to that, and I would appreciate yours showing that wolves are eliminating disease.

    http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_3547.aspx

  156. bearbait says:

    I have read (translated into English) Russian “best science” that says contrary to the wolf being the eliminator of disease, it is a vector for disease. Some of the parasites and disease wolves carry in Russia are dangerous enough to humans that the science types say to never to have contact with wolf scat or disturb it in any way.

    If it is the same wolf, just on a different continent, why would it be presented in literature, newspaper reports, and scientific journals in such a different way in Europe than it is here? It appears the real difference between the USA and Russian frontiers was that Americans had the right to bear arms, and the ability to care for their property, and that was not the case in Russia. The state had control of guns and wolves, and only when the state controlled wolves did peasants live without painful and fatal interactions with wolves. That is just historical fact, read from the literature of European wolves.

    I guess the peasant class in the USA is in town, and not affected. Their interests are protected by the left, who cannot yet fathom why the urban poor grow in numbers and diminish in education on an annual basis. And Cod only knows, the urban intelligencia has all the answers, and the rural oligarchs should not have a say in all things wild, deferring any sovereignty over their land to the tyranny of the urban majority. Or so it sounds all too often in these posts.

    Wolf re-introduction has worked. Wolves galore. Wolves off to where they were not wanted and were not to be protected in the rules by the Federal government. The wolf is never going to be worshipped by all or even a majority. Some wolves will try to make a living in the wrong place. Smart as their anthropogenic apologists deem them, like teenagers and urban drop outs, many wolves will make bad decision after bad decision, and will pay for it. They are just victims of Bruce Babbitt’s Preparation H diplomacy, prescient political thinking, shoot from the hip regulation. Makes me really happy he didn’t get a tour with the Supremes.

  157. Jay Kanta says:

    As well, Marion, I notice that you still haven’t apologized for being so nasty towards the author of this piece, in the very first comment, even!

    “I cannot imagine how disappointed you are going to be when no wolves are killed. ”

    Come on, Marion, thats just impolite towards the author, and when proven absolutely wrong, you change the subject.

  158. Marion says:

    Jay, those are mere speculations, I was refering to actual studies done on disease where wolves live.
    I too have read the Graves book (thanks bearbait), and they actually have studies showing that wolves spread disease. This makes sense because they carry tissue from one place to another to feed pups. Also they carry specific diseases, and one of those was found just last year in a elk outside of the park during hunting season.
    The area of Colorado where the CWD got such a toehold has lots of lions, but that certainly did not halt the spread. When it comes to speculation, I speculate that predatory and scavanger birds may be responsible for the increased spread.
    By the way, you’ll have to wade thru all of the posts, but I did apologize to anyone offended by my poo pooing the killing of wolves the first weekend, that would include Bill.
    I just wish you guys considered 3 wolves as big a deal when they are on a ranch as you do dead.

  159. Ann says:

    You know I thought that two of those wolves were just basically ‘gunned’ down, and only ONE wolf was actually killed on private property by a livestock owner. That’s a lot different than having all three on private livestock inhabited property. Some more spin?

  160. Frank N says:

    Well, this discussion is rather moot now. The wolf-haters did not take Bill’s advice. One of the wolves killed this weekend was the beloved Yellowstone wolf 253m. A better script could not have been written to give folks a better rally cry. I’m sure that the legal wheels are rolling. If this story makes the national news…the story of a gutsy, 3-legged survivor, who managed to stay out of trouble while traveling to Utah and back, and while making a living in heavy cow country, shot down for the fun of it on the first weekend of de-listing…the absurdity of Wyoming’s wolf “management” plan will become apparent to the nation.

  161. Frank N says:

    BTW, this wolf and its probable mate, were shot on public land near an elk feedlot. This is winter elk habitat where the public aren’t even supposed to be allowed until after May 1. Yet they were shot by private citizens.

  162. Matt says:

    Hey all, even more “grist for the mill” as hunter said
    Hunter put up some numbers earlier and I refigured them according to Marion’s quote of Bangs saying for every 1 confirmed there are maybe 7-9 others. If we figure the same # of cattle: 4.5 million and slightly overestimate the # of kills at 1800 in a year (4,5 million from the USDA website and 1800 an estimate based on all info presented) we get a percentage of .04% of cattle killed by wolves instead of .004% (even these numbers are a little high as I couldn’t find cattle numbers for WY). In contrast, the 3 wolves killed represent about .23% of the total wolf population and .96% of the WY wolf population.

  163. Frank N says:

    “…..Some wolves will try to make a living in the wrong place.” So, bearbait, let’s target THOSE wolves, not good wolves like 253 just going about the business of being a wolf. Most wolves will never get into any trouble, except now with Wyoming’s absurd (and soon to be found, illegal) “shoot on sight” “management”. Why can’t they be left alone? Management belongs to professionals, targeting specific wolves that are causing problems, not a wily-nilly approach designed to destroy a still fledgling population fresh off of the endangered list. This approach insures disaster and guarantees that the wolves will be back on the list in short order.

  164. Jay Kanta says:

    Three reported, how many went unreported?

  165. Rose Mary says:

    To Ann ~

    Although your recent postings were addressed to Marion and I certainly do not speak for any other person, if you are concerned and speaking in regard to private property rights vs. other issues being discussed, you may have gotten the wrong impression somewhere along the line. Of course, I do not know what state you live in or by what right/title/interest under specific state law might come into play in your location, but as far as the Feds are concerned they do NOT have the right of trespass on private property anymore than a private citizen might have ~ which is NONE. That includes the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others that come under the “ownership” of the U. S. Department of Interior. However, those employees who operate “in the field” are decidedly prone to failing to acknowledge that FACT while crawling over private property fencing and attempting to trespass on private property at will. They get away with it in many instances because private citizens are unaware of the FACT that a federal or state employee (with RARE exception) can NOT break the law anymore so than any of the rest of us can.

    This FACT may be tempered to some degree IF your state has some sort of law that would override federal law in that regard. In my state that is not true so they do not have any state-specific right of trespass here. Yep. That *has* been proven in court in my area.

    As I said initially, I do not speak for anyone other than myself … but in my not-so-humble opinion ANY private property owner ~ “private property” being voiced here to include ALL of it, including but not exclusive to both land and livestock of ANY kind ~ should have the right to “defend and protect” that privately owned property to extent of their ability to do so. That is an opinion I strongly hold whether or not the subject of any conversation is about wolves. Wolves are only one of many predators that can enter onto private property and destroy private property.

    So if your primary concern voiced in your comments is related to your personal rights to “defend and protect” your land or your livestock, rest assured that you do have a very large number of people throughout the West and throughout this Nation who have their feet firmly planted on that same side of the fence with you! Their numbers are NOT simply related to either rural properties or wildlife of any kind.

    Beyond the boundaries of private property ownership ~ again, “private property” being voiced here to include ALL of it, including but not exclusive to both land and livestock of ANY kind ~ another issue is implanted which seeks to define “and then what happens” on publicly owned property. On that issue(s) each and every one of us who are citizens of the USA have one equal voice.

    It is my opinion that the anger and retorts arise from private property owners when “the hands of The Public” seek to reach across those private property boundaries (of all kinds) and dictate to owners of privately owned property what they are “supposed to” do regarding any/all property to which an individual owner(s) holds that right/title and legal interest and thereby retains, and should always retain, that personal right to “defend and protect” it ~ whether that amounts to one velvet covered stool in a living rooms or one Bison mowing a yard.

    Furthermore, I totally agree with the portion of your statements saying that you should be the one who decides what and/or who enters upon your property and just what or who that is and for whatever reason you think it is okay/fine for them to be there is absolutely the way it ought to be!

    My state also has a “fence out” law regarding domestic livestock. The legality and/or practicality of attempting to “fence out” wild predators is a horse of an entirely different color and I know of no law in this neck of the woods that voices such an expectation of any citizen.

  166. Matt says:

    How come no one comments on the numbers presented? None of the anti-wolf folks have commented on the numbers posted by Hunter and myself. They make a big deal about how many cattle are killed yet the numbers debunk their complaint. Wolves are not going to put cattle ranchers out of business, the numbers (less than 1/2 of 1 percent of cattle are effected by wolf kills in MT, WY, & ID) demonstrate that. However, if the recent trend of 3 confirmed wolf kills in a weekend continues, the wolf numbers will be drastically effected (in one weekend, folks with guns killed almost 1% of the WY wolf population). These rural folks are afraid, that is what it all boils down to; they are afraid of what they don’t FULLY understand. I don’t claim to know everything about wolves or their effects so I looked up the numbers and incorporated numbers given by Marion; the bottom line: the CONJECTURE doesn’t seem to match REALITY. I live in a “town” of around 50,000 people in MT and have seen a wolf on the hill near my house. Do the local residents get up in arms about it? NO. If you are going to live in predator country (lions, bears, wolves, etc.) learn to live with them or get out while the gettin’ is good. Maybe you could move to Florida, I don’t think they have wolves there- but watch out for the panthers!

  167. bearbait says:

    Frank N.: I fully agree with you. I support the majority rule on public lands. I think the public can be mislead and can be malinformed. But they can change, and zealots will not. I will support professional wildlife management, which is more than enviros will give. I support the right of private property holders to protect and save their interests on their land. I also support the concept that wolves are a part of it all, and should be on the landscape. My issues, of course, are with how many and where? The wolf support group has yet to come up with numbers or landscapes. Instead, we get venon and bile, personal attacks, and dodge-the-issue rhetoric. No end of that is in sight.

    The one issue I have with the urban majority is that they are not paying their way on these wildlife management issues. The use of tax forgiven money to litigate against government agencies in wildlife issues takes license and tag money from hunters and fishermen, and transfers it to lawyers and enviro groups. I would like to see all litigation awards come from the State treasury, or the Federal treasury. As it stands now, all too much of the time and treasure of habitat and critter management litigation comes from a limited resource, the sportsman by his purchase taxes and license and fee payments.

    I see in my state, facing a no salmon fishing season, is gearing up to raise their license and fee income to make up for the loss of fishing revenue. Commercial fishers pay a poundage fee on all landings, plus a license fee in a limited entry fishery. You have to buy the license to be able to fish in the future, even though you will have no income this year to pay for it. Sportsfishermen just don’t buy this year, with no penalty for future opportunities. The tyranny of the urban majority. If the habitat and critters are in the public domain, then all the public should be bearing a portion of the cost. Wolf management is going to cost money. Rigs, fuel, airplanes, transponders and collars, biology, monitoring, law enforcement. That should not be borne by hunters alone. My opinion. My idea is that basic societal fairness is not now being addressed. And if that is not happening, the problems and solutions will never be fully addressed. The last thing we need is wolf management by the inner city public school model where special interests financed by mandatory union dues prevail for themselves and the kids go wanting. Wolf care taken over by the left with their bankrupt government models needs the oversight provided by general fund support in the legislatures.

    There are many comments on this site that indicate that discrimination is deep seated in the enviro left, what with all this redneck, queer baiting, personal attack garbage. My observation. But not unexpected from that societal segment. They do funny things when they are not getting their way.

  168. Jay Kanta says:

    “I will support professional wildlife management, which is more than enviros will give.”

    No proof of that claim, just emotional claims.

    “There are many comments on this site that indicate that discrimination is deep seated in the enviro left, what with all this redneck, queer baiting, personal attack garbage.”

    But of course, you aren’t making it personal with the first quote, right?

    “Wolf management is going to cost money. Rigs, fuel, airplanes, transponders and collars, biology, monitoring, law enforcement. That should not be borne by hunters alone.”

    Proof is not offered that Idaho Fish and Game or any other F&G;organization is funded solely through tag fees. Cite? The evidence that F&G;receives federal and state grants is very easy to find with Google.

    bearbait, you offer a lot of anecdotal and emotional pleas with little substance. Would it hurt to offer a few sources for your more outlandish claims?

    As well you make your claims that so many “wolf-huggers” are urban in origin, would you care to back that up with some proof?

  169. Dave Skinner says:

    Aw, geez, Jay.
    Increased snowfall causing elk mobility? Ever noticed that except for this year there’s been a screaming DROUGHT since 1997? And have you read Ripple’s reports on “trophic cascade” effects of “keystone predators” on elk?
    Finally, as for wolf lovers being a bunch of urbanites, go check out the BSU and IDFG surveys for the demographics of the respondents. The closer to town you are, the more lovey-dovey you be. That’s a fundamental finding.

  170. Jay Kanta says:

    You know Dave, I do realize that you are a journalist, or at least claim to be one, and that you have had years to bone up on all of this information. However, I have to wonder why your views on this are so skewed? If you are a journalist, shouldn’t you try to be unbiased in your reporting rather than spreading rumors that wolves are forcing elk to mingle with bovines without ever publishing a single amount of data to back that up? Don’t you think that at some point it is your credibility that will take the heat for things like that?

  171. gline says:

    LIke it would be unbiased to spread news that wolves eat all the elk. thats a 2 way street Jay.

  172. Jay Kanta says:

    gline: to what are you referring? I don’t catch what you’re throwing.

    Ann: Thank you so much! I never knew that there was an issue with the feral pig population in the south.

  173. matt m says:

    I keep hearing the wolf haters talk about property rights. Why all this talk of private property when we know that most cattle grazing takes place on public land? We also all know that ranchers have ruined public land threw decimation of native grasses and animal speicies. When ranchers agree to keep their cattle on private land, then we can talk about private land.

  174. Rose Mary says:

    Well, I’m sure glad we finally got all THAT straightened out once and for all!!!

    Now all that’s left for you to tell us is WHERE they threw those grasses and animal speicies TO.

    Please be sure to state the exact location where they landed after being thrown or you just KNOW you’re gonna have a LOT of trouble with Jay, right?

  175. Ann says:

    Cattle grazing around where I am is ONLY on PRIVATE property, so I can’t speak to any cattle grazings on public land.

  176. Jay Kanta says:

    Well matt m: Rose Mary is correct, a link to a corresponding study or it is just anecdotal evidence that carries no weight in a debate.

    Of course, Rose Mary’s snark is a pretty sad testimony to her own baseless arguments, but hey, thats what she’s here for, right?

  177. Marion says:

    Well, I don’t know where Mattm might have thrown all of that grass and animals, but the fact si Matt, ranchers lease land and graze their animals for the 3 months of summer. Not only do they pay money for this right, but they also provide water sources for wildlife in summer with reservoirs and cleaning springs, creeds, etc. They also provide winter habitat for wildlife on thier own private property. I forgot, what is it you do for wildlife on your property or in the wild?

  178. Matt M says:

    Marion,

    Ranchers lease OUR public land at a very small price, make a profit, and still charge too much for beef. Meanwhile, we taxpayers artificially prop up the ranching industry by supporting the Wildlife Service which is a nightmare to wildlife. Ranchers overgraze the grass (scientific fact) which has had implications for all species. They resist any attmept at the re-introduction of bison, wolves, jaguars in the southwest, grizzlies, prairie dogs (there are entire parts of the west where there are none), etc.The North American ecosystem is crippled in large part due to ranchers. Water has always been there for wildlife, until of course it was sucked away from the natural environment so people could have nice, green lawns and the dazzling lights of Vegas. They provide wildlife habitat? Please be specific with examples. What do I do for wildife? I drive a fuel efficient vehicle, I recycle, I live simply, I buy used goods when possible, I check books out from the library rather than buying them when possible, I live in a smaller house, I plan on having no more than one kid, I take short showers, I donate money to organizations that help wildlife, and I eat chicken and turkey rather than beef.

  179. Marion says:

    All of those things are fine Matt, I don’t know that they have much effect on wildlife, but if you drive down a road of an evening in this country you will see hundreds perhaps thousands of deer/elk in fields eating. They do not pay AUMs. Drive out thru the sage brush covered hills and you will find reservoirs and antelope, deer, elk (if they live in that area) and other wildlife also go there to drink. I could not even begin to estimate how amny wildlife lifes are saved across the west by those reservoirs.
    The cooperation of ranchers and local F&G;and hunters have worked for over 150 years restoring and improving life for wildlife. It is beyond my comprehension why there has been a move to try to force ranchers off the land and just use it for recreation. That benefits no one but the recreationalist, and eventually it will decrease the wildlife habitat.
    As for the cost of beef, a rancher gets what he can sell it for, he does not set the price, and believe me the price in the store does not reflect what a rancher gets for his beef on the hoof. Now if you want to see the price really high, force American ranchers off the land and import beef like we do fuel.
    Here’s an example of a rancher contributing to wildlife that I took along the highway, it is even more noticeable in the off road places.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/82934288@N00/1878669252/

  180. Ann says:

    Beautiful picture Marion.
    Now what I see in that picture is a pasture that still has it’s bales left out in it, no CATTLE, (if there were the bales wouldn’t still be baled) And a bunch of mulies eating grass doing no harm to any one or anything. Since there are no cows in there the grass is ‘free-game’ so-to-speak for the wildlife.
    It looks like a very peaceful setting.
    All those deer in that pasture will do less damage to that pasture than 10 head of cattle would do.

  181. matt m says:

    Marion,

    Human consumption habits and human numbers have a great impact on wildlife. Changing one’s daily lifestyle will do more to help wildlife than digging some water hole somewhere. As for large number of deer and elk, that is to be expected considering the predators that prey on them have been wiped out. So are you saying ranchers help wildlife by wiping out other wildlife? That makes about as much sense as…well, it really doesn’t. As for the photo, I see a bunch of deer becoming dependent on human provided food, which ultimatley harms wildlife more than it helps. Maybe if that land had not been so altered by grazing, it could support wildlife on it’s own without human help. What have ranchers done for wolves, bears, and prairie dogs? They have blasted them to oblivion. Also, most ranchers have a legal right to shot those deer. “They came on my private property and are endangering my livelyhood by eating my hay”.

  182. Frank N says:

    Thanks Marion. I checked out your other photos on there as well. You obviously have a great love for wildlife and wild places, which shows in your photos, and makes some of your positions even harder to understand. I also snap an occasional picture, and my son does it for a living.
    The deer grazing in your picture look a lot like the deer that graze on the lawns and apple trees of the subdivisions around here. They, at least, don’t seem to have noticed the decline in ranches and boom of subdivisions. I can drive in the hills, where there are neither ranches nor subdivisions, and find plenty of wildlife as well. They got along just fine before people were here, and would if we were gone.
    There is little question that (some) ranchers, F&G;and hunters did, in fact, do much to restore wildlife populations that were pretty much devastated in the early 20th Century (mostly BECAUSE of ranchers and hunters….loss of habitat and over hunting). Environmentalists, conservationists and nature lovers everywhere have much to thank good, responsible hunters for. They were the first environmentalists, even if many of them do not like the word.
    The problem is that wolves, bear, coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, badgers, prairie dogs etc. are ALL wildlife as well. I have a good friend who is a rancher (we simply agree to disagree on politics!). He loves deer. He even occasionally puts out a little grain for them (illegal in Montana BTW) so they will come up to the house where his 101 yr. old mother can see them. Yet in the winter, when the elk come down and eat his hay, he calls it predation! Just like predators killing his stock, he says. I’ve seen him out in the middle of the night with a starter pistol and dogs chasing them off. Last Spring he shot a coyote family (mom and pups) on his back forty. Right by the den. Weren’t doing anything wrong…but they might. Trouble waiting to happen, he said. His walls are adorned with fox pelts that he has shot or trapped over the years. He loves to tell the story of this one “dumb” fox that walked right up to him (curious?) and he shot it between the eyes. Also about all the prairie dogs he has “had to” poison over the years, and how mad he is that this poison or that isn’t available anymore because “a couple of eagles” MIGHT have gotten poisoned!
    Now, if I didn’t know better, and I just drove by his land during the summer and saw hundreds of mule deer, white tail and maybe some pronghorn grazing in his fields, it would be easy for me to think, “Now there’s a wildlife friendly landowner!”
    Now, I live on a forty acre plot. I used to have a few sheep (they came with the property), but got rid of them. I put in a pond and naturalized it, put up bluebird boxes, planted natives shrubs. I have deer, pronghorn, occasional elk, occasional bear, rare wolf or two (I think there is a small pack in the hills behind my property) and even a moose once last fall down by the creek. I even have a couple of prairie dogs that have moved in.
    Now, which is more wildlife friendly? My neighbor’s 800 acre ranch, or my forty acre subdivision? That’s why I always say that one is not necessarily better for wildlife. It depends on whether we’re talking a few select species, or we’re talking WILDLIFE.

  183. Ann says:

    Matt;
    I have to argue with you on the deer being ‘dependent on human provided food…” I don’t see them eating the ‘hay’ which is just dried baled grass, I see them eating the grasses that would be growing there whether there where cattle fields, hay fields, or anything else. They are eating vegetation that is growing out of the ground. The other thing I notice is the ground isn’t all torn up like it would be if cattle were on it.

  184. Marion says:

    Believe me Ann, when the snow (global warming be hanged, it happens) covers the ground and the grass is buried, those same deer are into the hay stacks. I would have to go back and blow up the shots, but some of the bales had already been pawed on, and torn.
    You are impressed that cows haven’t torn up the ground, jsut where do you think the cows are during the inter? Yep on the hay fields right with the deer, elk and whatever else comes in.
    Frankly I think you guys like to concentrate on the damge to “nature” by ranchers so you do not have to deal with the damage done by city dwellers. I have never seen any of you mention the impact on nature by yourselves and your lifestyle, not once. If you can force someone else to go the extra mile for wildlfie that seems to make up for the damage you do, at least in your own mind.
    Thank you for the kind comments on my photos, I love nature, but I am also a realist, and realize that some things are what they are. There is no such thing as perfection, nor balance for that matter. What is today may not be tomorrow. Buffalo were brought into Yellowstone to restore the balance, now we have a mess, wolves were brought in for the same reason, now we are seeing the moose and elk herds melting away.

  185. KevinN says:

    What an entertaining read this has been. I especially liked Marion’s comments about carcass’s being carried off. Gave me laughing fits for 10 minutes.

    It’s good to see that Marion is on every post I find in reference to Wolves and her comments rarely change. She even has supporters here, too. It’s even better to see that people are still calling her on her ‘not fact based opinions’. Thank you to all of you that do.

    Bill’s original article was a good one and pretty accurate for being written before the fact. There are some great comments here and I can’t quote them all so I won’t even try. But I’ll say this.

    I believe that Wolves should be managed by professionals, just like all other wildlife. WY’s “management” plan is not management at all. The “Predator” status in 88% of the state proves that.

    As far as numbers go there shouldn’t be a limit in my opinion. If wolves can survive in any area without interfering with livestock, endangering pets or ‘human life’ on private property then they should be left to thrive.

    As far as Ranchers and Farmers “allowing” other wildlife to graze/live on their land, Why do you think that is Marion? Why aren’t they wanting to kill them off as well? Aren’t they taking money away from them as well, if your claims are true?

    I could go on about other absurd accusations and speculations on here but it would have nothing to do with the original article.

    Don’t ask me what I give to the area or to wildlife protection. No I don’t live there, but I spend a lot of time and money in the area, over 90 days in the last year. And don’t ask me if I want a Wolf in my backyard. It wouldn’t/couldn’t survive here. That would be like me asking you if you want an Aircraft Carrier parked in your back yard. You don’t, Oh you must not think we need them around then. And it has no bearing on my right to want there to be Wolves in area’s that they can survive. After all, you may live in WY but it’s part of the same country that we all are citizens of and like it or not we all have a say in what happens in this country. Yes, even WY.

    Marion as far as you leading everyone to believe that you personally have losses from Wolves and their ‘vicous’ nature goes. I’m sure a lot of people on here know it’s not true. But in case they don’t, well I just let them know.

    Kevin

  186. elfman says:

    Marion: if you were a realist then perhaps you might understand that everything in nature serves a purpose whether we know what that is or not. I asked you about God before and you attempted to spin the point by mentioning “undesirable” things like WNV carrying mosquitoes. The conclusion to be drawn from the existence of things like WNV in relation to why God would create such things is obvious. Population control. When population levels get out of hand for a particular species due to lack of predators disease sets in. We see this in nature all the time. Man has so overpopulated this earth that it is inevitable we see terrible diseases one can only assume were intended by God to reduce our numbers. The same goes for wildlife.

    It is puzzling when I see someone claim to believe in God refuse to speculate as to why our Creator would have placed things here like mosquitoes and wolves. Seems like a slap in the face to God if you ask me. You vilify these creatures and ignore God’s role in their creation and purpose.

    I have yet to see Rose Mary respond to the God question. Wonder why?

  187. elfman says:

    You seem to be only paying attention to the atrocities of the societal segment that disagrees with you on the given issue. If someone who you perceive to be on your side makes a personal attack on another you seem to want to stick your fingers in your ears while yelling “I can’t hear you!” Conversely, when one of the “enviros” makes a personal attack on someone you agree with you jump up on your soapbox and complain about “discrimination” and make the claim that these people “do funny things when they don’t get their way”. This comment reminded me of an email I received recently from a friend in Tennessee. It was a story about a group of hunters in Louisiana who, for the past 25 years, held a hunting lease on a tract of private land whose owner decided not to renew the lease upon its expiration. There was no explanation as to why the lease was not renewed but the reason is irrelevant. If you own private land you lease out to a hunting club it is entirely within your rights to change your mind and choose to do something else with your property upon the lease expiration. As it often happens on a long term lease these lessees began to feel that they owned the property though they never paid a dime of property taxes on the land. Naturally, they were aggravated for having lost their precious hunting lease and decided to take it out on the game. The story was accompanied by a photograph of about 12 hunters (presumably the lessees) with at least 30-40 very nice bucks (and small ones too) all laying dead before them. It would appear they took out every last living male ungulate on this land. I would never think of this as “funny” but I should point out that members of the “societal segment” you see as pure as the driven snow do some “funny” or, more fittingly, perverted things when they don’t get their way. This is not much different than renting a house for a number of years and then burning it down when you learn that the owner has decided not to renew the lease. Of course, the hunting lease situation is much more disgusting as these guys took it out on innocent, living creatures rather than a building. I would hope you could agree there are extremists at both ends of the spectrum. There are plenty of personal attacks here volleyed from both sides. Also, you claim only the “enviros” sidestep. Well, if you ignore this post you will be just another sidestepper.

    By the way, what the hell is “queer baiting”?

  188. Mary Beth says:

    elfman (and others),
    I ask this question in all seriousness and not being facetious:
    What the heck is the purpose for a tick? That’s the only one I’ve never been able to find a reason for!

  189. elfman says:

    Mary Beth: Good question. I certainly did not mean to purport to have all the answers as to why God created all that he has. However, my strong speculation is that the tick’s role in the world is to spread disease which, again, is a form of population control. Nature is seemingly cruel but, hey, God must have his/her reasons, right? Marion talks of the cruelty of wolves… specifically, the way they tear their prey apart, etc. However, she makes no acknowledgment of actions such as the rancher who shot the fox between the eyes presumably for no other purpose than to watch him bleed.

  190. Marion says:

    Well Kevin, you may be back from a months vacation burning that gas driving up and down the Lamar, (so Wyoming can drill for more for you), but I don’t think your mind has kicked in yet.
    It is true the deer and elk, etc may eat a few thousand dollars worth fo hay every winter, the water tanks etc are cleaned anyway so the rancher doesn’t mind sharing. The wolves tear animals apart and eat on them alive, cruelty is a hard thing to deal with even if it is nature, and it is harder fi it happens to be your dog or a pet calf that you raised on a bucket, or a 4-H lamb.
    Can you honestly tell me with all of the time you spend watching wildlife in the park that you have never seen a wolf or coyote or eagle carrying meat from one place to another? In fact an eagle can carry an antelope fawn when it is first born. Predators either wait to carry away a newborn or start eating on it as the mother is delivering it and helpless. Now if you think there is no brucellosis in any of that tissue you are funny, it all has a blood supply.
    I made that point that city folk cannot and do not make any sacrifice for wildlife directly, but leave that up to those they decide can do the sacrificing.

  191. elfman says:

    Marion: Only one link of many here… http://www.fws.gov/northeast/urbanwl.html
    Many urbanites love wildlife just as much or more than you.

  192. KevinN says:

    My mind has never been “kicked out” so no need for it to kick in.

    Yes, I have seen Wolves, Coyotes, Eagles, Fox, Ravens and even Uinta ground squirrels carrying away pieces of meat, while watching wildlife. But there has always been traces of the animals that meat is from left behind. You make it sound like the Wolves suck them up in their mother ship and whisk them away.

    “…disappeared the smae night, (carried away by the wolves)..”

    You choose to live in the environment that you do, a place near wildlife. Wolves, Bears, Coyotes all predators are a piece of that ecosystem. From your opinions it seems that the only part of the wildlife that matters are Elk, which I know you love, as do I. But with any understanding of an Ecosystem you will realize that those predators are key to maintaining a viable and healthy population for all other species. You mention the decline of Moose in the area since the REintroduction of the Wolves. You don’t however mention the Beaver returning (because of fewer coyotes, that were running rampant without the wolves present), along with, marsh area and Aspen stands beginning to regrow (because of TO MANY Elk foraging in the open) which has brought back marsh and song birds in greater numbers. Fox numbers have increased because the coyotes have other things to worry about than taking them out.

    These are just a few of the things that have changed back since the REintroduction.

    If you could at least accept that the Wolves are a viable part of the ecosystem and accept that they are BACK to stay and get over the “bringing them out of Canada” thing and the “forced on us” thing. Stick to the “Ranchers have a right to protect their livelihood” thing (which I agree with, just not to the degree that you do to support it) it would be easier to agree with you on some of what you say.

    But the constantly going back to “enviros” forcing their will onto others, you dont’ want the wolves thereand the wolves were only brought into force ranchers out of business, gives all your other, viable, comments less impact on others. But it is your right to say what you want.

    I don’t think you are a bad person. I think you have probably been fighting this fight for a long time and it’s hard to change. But talking about things that were supposed to be and personal beliefs passed on from others, aren’t helpful to any situation. There is good and bad in the wolves being back depending on how you look at it and your perspective.

    But the fact is they are back and further fact, back to this article, if the ‘reduction’ of Wolf numbers continues like it did last weekend for the next month or two, I think the states very well lose their right to manage the wolves.

    As I said, I think the wolves should be managed just like all other wildlife. But they should be managed, not slaughtered as predators. There were all ready a process in place prior to delisting for ‘taking care’ of wolves that preyed on livestock. That could and should remain in affect. Of course my views of ‘Public Land’ differs from yours as well. But that is another matter.

    With your logic of a Rancher being able to shoot wolves that harrass, get near, might eat his livestock, should the same be true for the Farmer who has Elk/Deer that get near or might eat on his crops? Because if that is the case I’m going to move down there and be me an acre or two and plant some corn.

    Kevin

  193. KevinN says:

    Sorry for all the Typo’s. Hopefully you can all figure out my meaning.

    Kevin

  194. Mary Beth says:

    elfman,
    I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you had all the answers… I’ve just been trying to figure that one out for years – I really do want to know! Thought others maybe are more enlightened than myself.

  195. elfman says:

    Again, my guess is nature’s population control.

  196. Marion says:

    Kevin, yes, I choose to live in the area where I was born. I have no problem with naturally occurring predators or anything else. I do have a big problem with city folk deciding that we who do live here need to learn to share our animals with wolves because you enjoy watching them. There were naturally occurring wolf populations establishing themselves, but they were not enough to provide the watcher entertainment & create the wildlife & rancher problems the trucked in wolves do. Nature was just too slow for you. Who will you blame if the elk herds continue to diminish and can no longer support wolves in the park? Can you accept the fact that you wanted too much too fast or will you blame ranchers and hunters? I think I know the answer.
    By the way if you read Doug smith’s book on 10 years of wolves, you will see that beaver did not magically appear with the wolves, they were planted north of the park and migrated. A question will be how long they will survive.
    Ranchers do not kill deer or elk, nor do folks like me with a couple of acres. If you are not cogniscent of the difference between a grazer and a predator, I don’t know what to say.

  197. elfman says:

    “Ranchers do not kill deer or elk”? Are you kidding me?! I have hunted elk with many ranchers and they are pretty good at killing them. Not sure what you are getting at here.

    You have “no problem with naturally occurring predators”?

    Oh, I see… so if wolves had naturally repopulated to the levels they are now then you would be singing their praises? Ha! I doubt it.

  198. Marion says:

    I guess one could ask about mosquitos and termites being necessay. Well termites perhaps where anteaters live. But in your house? How many environmental types let termites continue to exist in the houses? They are one of God’s creatures you know.

  199. KevinN says:

    See Marion there you go again, right back to the same old thing.

    The Wolves ARE there no matter how they got there.

    I, personally, had nothing to do with that. Am I glad they are there? Yes. But let’s see what was I doing in 95′-96’? Oh that’s right defending your right to free speech. What does that pesky U stand for in USA? Oh right, UNITED. It’s not your state. It a piece of this great Country and Wyomingite’s are not the only ones that have a say in what happens on PUBLIC land or in NATIONAL parks.

    I know the difference between a grazer and a predator. But you didn’t answer my question. Which is exactly what you always do. Along with lumping everyone together that doesn’t have your same point of view.

    I see why so many people get so tired of debating anything with you. I was raised to respect my elders. That is why I have refrained from attempting to converse with you in the past on these matters. And that is why I will not discuss it further now.

    All in All Good story, Bill. Sorry more of the “good ole’ boys” didn’t read it and follow your advice.

    How long, not IF, before relisting occurs is the question. But time will tell.

  200. elfman says:

    God created termites long before we started building houses but, alas, you missed the point. I am sure termites serve some purpose in nature. You, however, seem to want to remove from the face of the earth anything that inconveniences you. Am I opposed to killing termites to protect my home? Of course not! However, do I want to start a campaign to remove them from the earth? Hell no. I was in Brazil last fall and saw many termite mounds in the fields. They looked to be every bit as much a part of that ecosystem as the jaguar, toucan and caiman.

  201. Mary Beth says:

    Thanks, KevinN. That’s been “bugging” me for years!

  202. KevinN says:

    Mary Beth, You’re welcome. Meant to tell you to scroll a little ways. The top portion was just whimless meanderings.

  203. Marion says:

    Elfman, that is exactly the point I was trying to make, just because a species is good & desirable in one place does not make it good in another. The wilderness in Canada is good, ranches in the rockies are not good. Virtually no one wants to remove them from the earth, they have their place like other species, but they do not belong in settled areas.

  204. elfman says:

    Marion: If you feel that I made your point for you then I do not think I made myself clear. Let me put it this way: If I choose to build my home in an area that is known to have indigenous termites I think I should take it upon myself to use building materials that are compatible with termites (i.e., perhaps Adobe, etc.) rather than set out to destroy every last termite in the world. Also, I do not think it is unreasonable for anyone to assume, based on your past rants about wolves, that you would just as soon see them wiped from the earth.

    Lastly, you say the “wilderness in Canada is good” but fail to make any mention of the wilderness in the USA (of which we have plenty). The Selway-Bitterroot wilderness comprises 2.5 MILLION acres not to mention the GYE, Glacier and Bob Marshall complex. Seems like you have a bad case of NIMBY in regard to wolves.

  205. KevinN says:

    Elfman, since I’m not debating with Marion anymore, maybe you can help me out and decipher it for me.

    Can youtell me who gets to choose what wildlife ‘belongs’ in “settled” area’s and which ones don’t?

    And can you tell me which “settled” area the Wolves were reintroduced too?

    Again, I’m all for management. But “Predator” and “Management” go together like,…….., like, well like Wolves and Cattle.

    One last question. If I’m a land owner in WY and someone’s cattle wander onto my property and eat my grass, get near my residence or harrass/upset my dogs, scare my children, can I shoot them?

  206. elfman says:

    KevinN:

    Didn’t you know that every acre of America has been settled whereas Canada is a vast and pure wilderness? There are no people or ranchers up there!

  207. Ann says:

    Kevin;
    I can’t really vouch for Wyoming, but in Montana I know for a fact, (because I asked point blank) that you can CONTAIN the person’s cattle, and make him pay restitution, BUT that does NOT mean you can contain them in your freezer. Already tried that, and I believe Containing in one’s freezer constitutes ‘rustling’

  208. elfman says:

    Ann: It is a shame the same does not apply to one’s dog. I cannot tell you how many dogs I am aware of that have been shot dead simply for trespassing (without harassing wildlife or cows). Seems awfully contradictory.

  209. Ann says:

    Elfman;
    I’m one of the FIRST to shoot at stray dogs that are NOT on their property, or with their ‘owner’. I may start out small as in BB’s but It get’s bigger believe me. Dogs are like kids, and should be kept track of at all times. Not allowed to run around on other people’s property.
    But that’s a whole nother story.

  210. elfman says:

    Ann: I did not mean to imply that people should not control their pets. I do not have dogs anymore but when I did they were not allowed to roam freely at all. It is a pet peeve of mine when I see others letting them run wild because, in all likelihood, if left to their own devices they will most certainly harass wildlife and cows sooner or later. Sometimes, however, dogs do get out by mistake and if they stray on to someone else’s property I do not believe they should be shot dead unless they are engaged in harassment, etc. I just wanted to point out the contradiction in the law you have cited.

  211. Ann says:

    I hear what you mean.
    I suppose if you had top dollar dogs you might get away with it but a dead cow is only worth the butcher weight, and a Live cow can run up a feed bill, and destroy all kinds of property, by just standing there emitting gases, etc. If you catch my drift? Restitution can get pretty dang costly.

  212. Marion says:

    Kevin, whether you are debating with me or not, it is pretty simple, settled is settled.If it is a species that does not belong where you live, it doesn’t belong where other folks live either. the wolves ere planted withing 20 miles of Gardiner and Cooke City, Mt. and less than 50 from Red Lodge and Cody, that is not even a good hike for them. In fact the first wolf killed illegally was killed near Red Lodge not long after they were turned loose.
    They did not plant the wolves in wilderness in Yellowstone, hte wolves might have behaved differently if they had been taken truly into back country, and then the back country closed to human use. They might have stayed wild.
    I think it is pretty obvious those who wanted the wolves got to choose what settled areas they wanted them in, and it was NOT where they lived.

  213. KevinN says:

    Ummm, Elk don’t belong where I live, I guess they don’t belong where you live either. Good logic Marion.

  214. KevinN says:

    Ann, Thank You for the info. Guess I won’t be moving to MT or WY, planting hay and waiting for ‘the cows to come home’ then.

    Elfman, I see your point about the contradiction on the dogs. Growing up on a Ranch in CO I saw plenty of ‘good’ cow dogs began chasing and harrasing cattle when they sat around not working for to long. With dire consequences from the Rancher to his own dogs.

    Marion, I see that you still can’t answer a direct question. If you could do that alone, debating with you would be so much easier. I thought that giving you some of my views that you may agree with would assist in us actually having an intelligent conversation. But I’ve come to the conclusion that you don’t want to do that. I’m sure I should have reached that conclusion a long time ago. All you want to do is continue to spout off your rhetoric, rumor, lies ,speculation and fears in the hopes of getting a few more people to believe your side.

    If it was in the back country of YNP or not it was still in YNP. Last time I checked, (Monday) there isn’t one “Settled” area inside of park boundaries. Again, Marion, Rhetoric and lies. I’m sure you’ll convince some, but anyone that reads more than a few of your comments, as I have the displeasure of doing, will see through your petty scheme.

  215. Marion says:

    Kevin, I can’t tell you exactly who got to choose to put the wolves in “settled” areas, but we didn’t have a say in the matter. I can’t tell you how many we will have 5 years from now, but again, I don’t think we will have any say in the matter.
    Actually Mammoth is settled year around, and as I said the wolves were planted just a few miles from Gardiner, Cooke City, Silver Gate, Red Lodge. The wolves were not aware of any border.

  216. Jay Kanta says:

    So just to wrap up this lovely thread:

    We have a lot of whining about a predator filled with emotional pleas and little facts.

    We have a so-called “journalist” making claims about studies that don’t agree with the actual studies or demographics in any way possible, who when confronted with challenges to his claims appears (almost 48 hours later) to have run off, tail between legs.

    Then we had a wonderful discussion about Intelligent Design filled with all sorts of yummy hubris!

    And to finally close out the thread, we get a few more emotional cries about how the wolves are on someones grass, just like those darn kids are all the time.

    Yep, good times.

  217. Rose Mary says:

    But, hey!!! Look at it all in a positive light!!! Bill now has the title for his next article:

    “A Message to Dog, Cow and Kid Haters: Fight Trigger Itch”!

    What more could a fellow have hoped to accomplish, fer-pity-sakes!!!

  218. elfman says:

    Rose Mary: Do you believe in God?

  219. Rose Mary says:

    Yes, “elfman”-who-must-wear-those-pointy-toed-slippers, I do very strongly believe in a loving, compassionate and forgiving God. The proof of His Love and Compassion and Forgiveness is in the pudding: otherwise you and I both would have been burnin’ in Hell long ago.

    I live in His church, as a matter of fact, under a ceiling that He painted and carved with great Love that is held aloft by the Strength and Glory of His right-hand-girl, Mother Nature. He blessed me with the “accident”-of-birth to have been born a citizen of the USA, and for that I thank Him on a daily basis. And, although He has also blessed me with many hard times and long troublesome days, those lessons He teaches are only reminders of the Grace and Good Fortune He has given me with the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of my labors. He has given me the Gift of Hope and the Strength to survive in a world not always friendly or prone to reflect His Love, His Compassion or His Forgiveness. He has gifted me with both the Duty and the Responsibility to care for those I love to the best of my ability using the resources that He has provided for that task.

    And when my final days are done … when many wars have not been won … my sins on Earth will be off-set … by TLC to beasts I’ve met. Those opportunities diminish … as my life heads to a finish … as “the public” seeks to “take” … decisions now I’m forced to make. He did NOT gift a money tree … He gifted kids, grandkids to me. And those 2-legged beasts I love … are greatest Gifts sent from Above.

    So here you go, Dear Pointy-Toe … MUCH more than you have right to know:

    I see a fence; it’s fallin’ down; I see a weed that grows;
    I see a post lopsided, bent; on it a gate that bows.

    I see the top broke from a tree; strength in the wind it lacked;
    I see the hay is nearly gone; once in the barn was stacked.

    I see the aging apple trees are starting now to die;
    a shingle from the crinkled roof; on the ground it lies.

    All these reasons, even more, do remind me why
    a ranch is but a money pit half empty ‘til you die.

    No matter that you’ve poured it in one dollar at a time,
    the pit is never full enough for us to hold the line.

    Every time the sun comes up there’s more work to be done;
    it’s hard sometimes to recognize a ranch as something fun.

    But then I saw the morning sky, sun creeping o’er the hills;
    the graceful deer in my front yard made me forget the bills.

    They scampered through the failing fence; they bounced as though on springs;
    they never seemed to even notice all those broken things.

    I saw the cows stand up to eat the grass between the weeds;
    cloven hoofs pressed on the earth planting this year’s seeds.

    As the sun rose in the sky they gathered in the shade;
    tree top broken in the wind no difference to them made.

    Until the snow falls months from now why should they look for hay?
    If they notice that it’s gone ‘twill be some other day.

    A hawk is swooping low, then high; robin’s on the fence;
    an elk is standing, silhouette, a rack that is immense.

    The bottom of the lake needs sealing; nesting ducks don’t know;
    beavers build their dam upstream; prepare for winter snow.

    The scent of pine is in the air; mountains, rolling hills.
    Why would I ever think this place is all about the bills?

    Perhaps it’s not the drain that’s clogged; it’s just a home for slugs;
    perhaps the weeds are all wild flowers brought home to mom for hugs.

    Perhaps it’s not a broken fence; it’s just a wildlife trail;
    perhaps a change of vantage point will make the joys prevail.

    Perhaps the pit that looks half empty really is half full;
    can borrow money at the bank and buy another bull.

    That’s the way a rancher thinks; senseless, dusk or dawn.
    If we’d win the lottery we’d ranch ‘til it’s all gone.

    And when we finally give up hope that someday we’ll break even,
    houses can go up in rows on the land we’re leavin’.

    If we all forsake the dream, give up and go to town,
    I somehow know that on God’s face there’ll be a silent frown.

    …… a musing from the West by Rose Mary ___ ©

  220. elfman says:

    Rose Mary: Uh… care to answer the real question here now that we know you believe in God? Please speculate as to why God would have created the wolf and placed it in North America unless he/she intended it to live here. Did he/she place the wolf here to be hated and exterminated?! There appear to be no room for the wolf in your poetry.

  221. Rose Mary says:

    There is no room in my Life for hate.

    To exterminate means to obliterate ~ to reduce to nothing. I have neither read in this total MESS of comments, nor have I ever heard even ONE person express the desire to “exterminate” the wolf or any other creature on Earth.

    So far there ARE no wolves on my ranch so there has not YET been any reason on my part to include them in my poetry. However, you will also see that I have not made room in my poetry for either coyotes or mountain lions that do reside on my ranch ~ and that also prey on the many species of 4-legged beasts I raise and love.

    When I kill or seek to kill either species it is because I have made the CHOICE to do so. God gives us gifts AND He also gives us hard CHOICES that we must make every day of our lives. Should those who seem to think that it is THEIR job, not God’s, to “reintroduce” wolves to my ranch … where they have certainly NOT been for at least the last 50-or-more years and where GOD has not chosen to “reintroduce” them … which I certainly believe He has always had the capacity to do at His will (if He ever put them here to begin with … which I have never been able to substantiate in my area) then I will make the CHOICE to defend and protect the 4-legged beasts that I love.

    Although there are many differences between a coyote and a wolf, the wolf is much more prone to KILL IN EXCESS of any need that wolf might have to fill it’s tummy on any given day. It also is much more prone to HALF-KILL and leave HALF-ALIVE the prey it attacks than is the coyote; and, the wolf is much more prone to hunt and kill and rape and plunder in PACKS than are the coyotes that I have personally witnessed.

    On my ranch a coyote is a disposable animal WITH GOOD CAUSE.

    I have seen HOW they stalk and HOW they kill the beasts I love and it IS my God-given duty to protect my beasts, entrusted in my care BY God.

    On my ranch or anywhere else in the world a 2-legged beast who stalks to KILL the 2-legged beasts I love is also a disposable animal.

    It is extremely obvious to me from comments here and those frequently made on NewWest.net that FEW IF ANY of you have actually WATCHED how either a wolf or a coyote attacks or kills.

    Unfortunately, I have not been so lucky. I have no experience with the wolf ~ YET ~ but I certainly have too much experience with the dastardly METHODS of the kill done by the coyote on my ranch. Any woman who has delivered a baby or any man who has watched his child be delivered would share my sentiments IF they watched the way a coyote kills.

    A coyote will sit and watch and wait ~ with an inborn sense when a cow or a mare is in the last stages of her pregnancy and delivery of the calf or the foal is pending. As any mother knows, there does come a time when that baby IS going to be delivered whether or not the mother is ready or whether or not the inborn senses of that mother knows that to deliver that baby at that time is HIGH risk to both herself and her unborn child.

    A coyote knows … and waits … and when that cow or mare is forced to lie down on the ground and her labor begins the coyote approaches … and AS THAT BABY LEAVES THE BIRTH CANAL THE COYOTE EATS IT … and it will OFTEN also eat the rear end and the birth canal out of the mare or the cow before she can complete the labor and struggle to her feet in an attempt to defend herself and her baby.

    For all of you so-called tough guys who like to sit in judgment of others … how would YOU like to be in a delivery room watching that happen to the mother of YOUR child?

    I assume from your comments that you would be perfectly willing to just stand by and watch YOUR child being ravished in such a manner? ~ along with the mother of it?

    Well, I would not and I am not prone to do so. Not only is that cow or that mare a living/loving creature of God’s making, God blessed me with care of it and it is my job to honor those duties to the best of my ability … so I certainly WILL make that CHOICE to kill any such predator.

    If you all wish to sit on your velvet cushions and value the LIFE of one of God’s creatures over the other that is your CHOICE to make also. My choice and my loyalties lie with God’s 4-legged beasts entrusted to my care. When the coyote … and IF the wolf … approaches them their lives will always be in danger and their death will only be pending until such time as I can eliminate them, with or without the endorsement of any other human being. That is a CHOICE God has given me and one that I have accepted as my duty and my obligation to the living creatures that I love.

    I do NOT recall God’s Word ever mentioning a time or a circumstance or His Desire that any person on this Earth was put here to sit in Judgment of all others. To the best of my knowledge God reserved that Right of Judgment only unto God.

    The SELF-righteous comments you and others have made are not accompanied by pictures of those well-worn moccasins you borrowed from others who have worn them.

    Go forth and prosper, Pointy-toed-one.

    Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. I wish for you the latter as I do for myself.

  222. Marion says:

    Thank you so much Rose Mary. You are so eloquent, but I doubt that you are going to convince those who have set themselves up as fake gods over what is good and bad. I am sad to say that a lot of these folks enjoy sitting and watching an animal torn apart. They flock to pull outs in Lamar with their big scopes so they don’t miss a thing.
    A couple of years ago, wolves ate oen elk right by the steps of the Mammoth Dining room in winter, then they started on another that fought for her life despite very bad injuries for 2 days, on the 3rd, reality got to be too much and the ranchers took her away and killed her so folks didn’t get too much reality. Oh yes, it was February and they were “afraid it would attract a bear & endanger folks”

  223. Ann says:

    Well I have to agree with Rose Mary. I’m going to protect my little ‘heaven’ in the woods, as best I can. You behave yourself and your welcome on my small slice. If not then don’t stop in.

  224. Mr. Twister says:

    bill,
    Please write another stupid wolf rant so the 6 people left babbling on this one can amuse the rest of us yet again with even more and interesting ways of making fools of themselves.

  225. KevinN says:

    “…..and the ranchers took her away and killed her….”

    Marion, Did you mean Rangers?? Not sure what Ranchers would be doing at the Mammoth Dining room let alone killing Elk in the area.

    Anne, seems the “Judgement” you mention is going both ways. Nice Poem by the way.

    Mr. Twister, great idea. But I think I’m going to lose this bookmark. One site is more than I can or care to keep up with. As this is my first time posting on a newspaper website and I’ve already figured out it’s senseless. Seems like everyone that cares to read or post on these things are to set in their ways to even listen to an opposing view. Even if that opposing view is similar to their own. All they see is the little bit that isn’t the same.

    Since we turned to religion here is a thought for you that are God fearing people. The Golden Rule is Pro-active, not Re-Active. In other words:

    “DO unto others as you would have others DO unto you” That means you act first, second and always, regardless of how they treat you. That is the test of a Christian. Not how often or loudly you praise his name. Actions do speak louder than words, especially in God’s case. I don’t fear my Judgement day in the least.

    Peace Out

  226. Marion says:

    You are right Kevin, it is suppposed to be rangers. Frankly I don’t really think there is a way to come to an agreement, perhaps it would have been possible if the folks that wanted wolves were the ones that had them, although the cost & problems they bring might still have caused conflict. I see no way that you can have one group wanting someone else to take all of the problems, costs, and responsibilities and the other all of the enjoyment with no responsibility and no mandaotry cost, and come to an agreement. It would be kind of like me living in your house for free and insisting that you keep up the payments, taxes, and upkeep to suit me. I just don’t think that would work.

  227. Tom says:

    Marion,
    Haven’t you ever heard of Marxism? Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?

  228. KevinN says:

    Marion, in the month that I just spent down there I was pleasently surprised to meet several people from WY that where in the park simply to see the wolves. The first one that I met was a Rancher from your neck of the woods. I even told him that I was surprised that he would travel that far to see the wolves and that I was under the understanding that everyone in WY hated them. But he told me what I already knew, that they are a beautiful, cunning, vicious animal that is an important part of a healthy ecosystem. He did also mention that he wasn’t the most liked guy ‘back’ home. But he didn’t care. So there are people there that do pay the cost of having them there that want them there. Stating otherwise is false. He wasn’t the only one I met, but the only one that was a Rancher therefore the one with the most to lose of the ones that I did meet because of the wolves.

    A lot of people opposed to the wolves talk about the people that enjoy them/want them not having to deal with them. We all have things in our lives that we enjoy, but that we don’t have to deal with the ugliness of. Would you want a coal mine in your back yard? An Oil refinery? (that gas you put in your tank doesn’t come out of the ground that way) A power plant?

    You may see these as ridiculous examples, but some people do live by these things and many more that create or give us the luxuries we have in our lives.

    Again, I go to the fact that the Wolves ARE there. Regardless of what was thought would be the final numbers or when delisting would occur or what everyone thought that would mean. I’ve stated over and over again that there should be “management”. This includes protecting ones way of life and property. But Pubic lands do mean public, regardless if they are in WY, MT, ID or FL. So all citizens have a right and a say in what happens on them.

    I do not currently live where I want to end up. If my current ambition in life pans out I plan on moving to that area. I will gladly deal with the issues of living in Wild Country first hand. I would love to own some land and livestock. If that day comes I will take all necassary precautions for them, because I chose to live in that environment. But until then I will just be an outsider/frequent visitor, looking in.

    Marion, maybe some day I’ll run into you in the park and we can ‘shoot’ some Elk together. (By shoot I mean photograph of course)

    Kevin

  229. gline says:

    What a cruel thing to do to the wolf – REintroduce a beautiful, intelligent species created by God into its natural habitat, but surrounded by ignorant, self serving humans. Some of us are mature enough to realize the fragile beauty, others exploit. Nothing changes there. Its just a shame. and embarrassing to live in a county with people like Marion and Rosemary. We need a Noah’s ark and I know who I would leave off…

  230. gline says:

    Sorry Jay I mistook you for someone else. have to stop reading this negative stuff now, you keep on tho, doing a good job.

  231. elfman says:

    Ugh… I’m out of here. Cannot take it anymore.

  232. gline says:

    I dont blame you elfman, but there will be more opportunity for this kind of crap won’t there?

  233. elfman says:

    Yes, opportunity abounds. See ya next time.

  234. gline says:

    Unfortunately,,, I could think of better opportunities…

  235. Ann says:

    I just wanted to add one more thing about the picture Marion took, and the bales on the ground. If those hay bales were still left in the field and been snowed on and rained on they wouldn’t be much good for feed. I am guessing the picture was taken last fall. But again that was my interpretation of the picture.

  236. Marion says:

    That is right, the haybales were put up by the time I made the last trip in Oct. However you can be sure those animals join the cattle when they are being fed, and so do elk. Tehy were digging in the snow in the fields when I went up Norht Fork in December.

  237. Ann says:

    Still a beautiful Picture Marion. I don’t care what anyone says. If it’s got wildlife, and no humans in it I like the picture. :o)

  238. gline says:

    So Marion: are you Ann as well?

  239. Ann says:

    Yea RIGHT gline. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

  240. gline says:

    That’s all you’ve got to say? Because I’m truly wondering now… wouldn’t trust you as far as I could throw you.

  241. Ann says:

    And you think, that what YOU think, really matters?
    Follow some of the Bison vs idiots posts, and then make up your mind.
    It shouldn’t be too tough.

  242. Matt M says:

    No surprise here. Ranchers always get what they want. And yet at the same time they will complain about the feds trying to tell them what to do. Ironic. That’s like a spoiled child driving the car their parents bought for them and then complaining when the parent tells them to be home before 4:00am. Ranchers and spoiled children always want more and are never happy.

  243. Bill Schneider says:

    FYI, please note the following link to an article in today’s Casper Star-Tribune….Bill

    http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/04/06/news/39803d131de89bc78725742200268abe.txt

  244. Marion says:

    Bill, I too am conceerned about all of the hunterkilled wolves, I do not want the ranchers in that area where they do not get compensation, to lose their ability to kill wolves in their pastures. One rancher just lost several calves there the other night, and that comes straight out of the families budget, like it or not. Not much publicity about that though, I don’t even know how many wolves were involved..
    It does seem like for an area reported to not have many wolves, what 20-30, they are pretty plentiful. I think only the last 2 are of a pack, and we know 253 had not been counted for a couple of years. I’m wondering if there are lots more wolves than the estimate even if they are more or less habituated, it seems like a lot of sightings and killings for only 20-30 animals.

  245. gline says:

    “I’m not a pro-wolf person, but we lost,” Betts said. “Obviously, we want to go after problem wolves, but to actually hunt them — it’s just going to be self-defeating and it may get the wolf relisted. We need to back off and let ourselves win in court.”

    Can’t help that trigger itch can you??

  246. gline says:

    With all of the scientific aerial sightings, collaring, and constant wolf complaints how could they not know how many wolves there are? I think that is a bit paranoid to think the FW are not counting productively and efficiently, especially if they kill woves at ranchers will.

  247. Dewey says:

    It’s nine days into Wyoming’s Great 2008 Wolf Hunt as I write this. Does anyone know how many German Shephards have been caught in the crossfire ?

  248. Carlo Brutini says:

    Marion, what time is it?

  249. Vic. V says:

    Marion, are you related to Ronald Gillette ott there in Stanley?

  250. Kai Eiselein says:

    People on both sides of the debate would do well to heed the following statement:

    “When people made wolves the symbol of evil, that was wrong, But it’s just as wrong to make them a symbol of all that’s good, some mysterious icon of the wilderness.” John Vucetich, a researcher studying wolves in Michigan.

  251. matt says:

    Marion,

    Those wolf populations you speak of have been artificially suppressed to make room for cattle which not belong on the land. You speak of there not being enough to amuse city folk. What about artificially inducing large numbers of deer and elk to provide game to hunt for recreation? Your argument contradicts itself.