New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
An agreement reached last week between Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Director Dan Ashe, and the State of Wyoming will allow treatment of the wolf as a predator that can be shot, trapped, or run over at any time throughout most of the state.
Interior has agreed to remove Wyoming wolves from the threatened and endangered species list, and give the state authority to manage wolves under a unique and widely criticized dual management plan.
Wolves would be safe from hunters in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and on the Wind River Indian Reservation, and managed as trophy animals in the surrounding national forests, subject to regulated hunts. Beyond the trophy area, however, anything goes in killing wolves.
Immediately, the air was filled with salvos on both sides of the debate.
“Wyoming has once again succeeded in strong-arming the FWS into submission, giving tentative approval to an approach to wolves that harkens back to years gone by, when wolves were virtually exterminated in the western United States,” attorney Doug Honnold declared for Earthjustice. “After all the efforts to promote wolf recovery in the Yellowstone area, this is a major step backward.”
Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, also blasted the plan.
“Sanctioning aerial gunning and the killing of pregnant females and newborn pups is not only a clear violation of fair-chase hunting ethics, but also a drastic and unwarranted step that could seriously harm the long-term viability of the population.” she said.
Stone said she was appalled that the Obama administration had done something that she would have expected from the Bush administration.
The Interior press release that announced the agreement avoided the word “predator,” ignoring the reality of what predator status means in Wyoming, which is the only state in the Lower 48 that does not treat the wolf as a trophy animal by establishing regulated hunts.
A release from Wyoming Governor Matt Mead did mention the wolf’s predator status, but said nothing about killing wolves, only wolf management. Mead obliquely referred to sacrifices by cattle and sheep growers and the loss of “significant numbers of elk and moose.”
Mead’s statement, but not Salazar’s, referred to the seasonal flexibility of expanding the state’s Trophy Game Management Area about 50 miles to the south from its current location near the Wyoming/Idaho border. The expansion area would be managed as a Trophy Game Management Area from October 15 to the end of February, when wolves disperse into new areas.
Any wolves that attempt to establish a pack south of the flex line can be shot on sight again as soon as denning season starts in the spring.
Inside the trophy zone, the agreement allows livestock owners to kill wolves attacking their sheep or cattle. It also allows Wyoming Game and Fish to use aerial gunning to: control livestock depredations; achieve ungulate management objectives if wolves are determined to be a significant cause for not meeting those objectives; or address human safety issues.
Gray Wolf. Photo by Gary Kramer, USFWS.
Interior and USFWS have long maintained that Wyoming wolves should be managed as trophy animals, meaning hunters would have defined seasons and would have to purchase hunting permits. Federal officials, even in the Bush administration, regarded Wyoming’s predator status for wolves as problematic.
But Wyoming’s legislature and the successive administrations of Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal and Republican Governor Matt Mead refused to drop the dual classification of wolves.
Wyoming retains management of wolves as long as wolf numbers do not fall below 150, including animals in the national parks of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Stone noted that with a current population of 246 wolves outside the park, that means almost 150 wolves—nearly 60 percent—could be eliminated.
Based on the latest population estimates, there are 97 wolves within the boundaries of Yellowstone that will remain protected while they are in the park.
The flexible expansion area is supposed to allow Wyoming and Idaho wolves to expand into each other’s state, presumably increasing genetic diversity in both states. Stone said no biologist she knows believes the Interior/Wyoming plan will benefit wolves or wolf genetic diversity.
“A lot of wolves are going to die in our national forests,” she said.
The last time USFWS was politically pushed to approve Wyoming’s dual predator status for wolves, the animals were immediately attacked, she said. She recounted one instance in which a snowmobiler chased a wolf for 30 miles before killing it.
Just a few months ago, in an unprecedented move by Congress, an estimated 1,000 wolves in Idaho and 566 in Montana were “delisted” or removed from Endangered Species Act protections, along with wolves in Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Meanwhile, Wyoming’s Senator John Barrasso had put a hold on Ashe’s nomination as director of USFWS, a hold that was lifted a few weeks ago after Salazar and Ashe visited Barrasso with assurances that a solution in Wyoming would be aggressively pursued.
The agreement is the first step in a process that could take up to a year to finalize.
On Sept. 7-8, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission is slated to vote on changing state regulations to conform with the agreement. That has to happen before USFWS can publish a preliminary rule in the Federal Register to delist Wyoming wolves.
Mead and Salazar have jointly set Oct. 1 as the deadline for the preliminary rule. A year-long federal approval process would then begin, including public comment.
The Wyoming legislature will have to approve the new management plan worked out last week, which it presumably will consider in the next session.
Meanwhile, the Wyoming congressional delegation intends to pursue legislation that would prevent conservation groups or federal judges from getting involved. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-WY, recently inserted a no-litigation rider into a 2012 appropriations bill.
Brodie Farquhar, who has covered the West for decades as a specialist in resource journalism, lives in Casper, Wyoming.
The wolf will survive. At least the average Wyoming grey wolf is smarter than most of those gunning for it.
Wyoming had to resort to dirty politics and Congressional blackmail to achieve its unworthy goals, because they sure couldn’t win on science and law…
Without the radio collars and helicopters, the playing field would be level , advantage Wolf.
the picture says it all. They then pulled the animal apart with the ropes. Same mentality today which will be witnessed by the soon to follow comments by the usual suspects
“Without the radio collars and helicopters, the playing field would be level , advantage Wolf.”
Yes, and the wolf could continue to take full advantage of the other wild life they obviously dominate. Wolves could and will continue to take advantage of private property, those night raids for the slow elk, riding stock, and trained and or pet dogs, on the mans land.
And Wyoming can continue to decrease non resident hunting opportunity, evident in my Wyoming hunting regulations collection over the years. I cannot speak of the resident rules, have not looked at those for years. Idaho has made large hunting opportunity cuts in several hunt units over the last five years, again, as evidenced in those hunting regulations.
One wonders about all of these declines coming about, blame it on whatever you want, except it sure doesn’t say much for your science to over look the several issues causing wild life to decline, while at the same time adding wolves to the scenario, a wolf might ask who needs superior predators with guns, when those science gurus that moved us into this eco system failed to mention the food supply to sustain wolves here has several issues leading to wild life failures, some friends they turned out to be.
Maybe the hunt in Wyoming will send wolves into Colorado, yeah man, Colorado needs them some wolfy love.
Superior predators with guns? No, you mean cowards with guns. If they were so superior, they wouldn’t be having a hard time finding deer or elk, now would they? You said proved what it’s all about when it comes to the hunters, hunter opportunity. This is all you hunters have ever cared about, your opportunities and that’s it. This just goes to show you that the white man is as greedy and selfish as he ever has been. He only cares about his own needs and that’s it. The elk and there are not just there for the white hunter to kill. There are many people and organizations that are trying very hard to stop this wyoming wolf management plan from going through and I hope they succeed. We can’t let the wildlife hating rednecks of WY treat certain wildlife like vermin when they aren’t. The fact is as humans, we can adapt and survive on anything. Wolves on the other hand are strictly carnivores who can also survive on small animals, but to feed a pack, a large animal like an elk or deer must die to feed the wolves.
Wyoming can’t help it. I urge everyone to boycott Wyoming. 100 years ago hunters and ranchers were whining, they whine now, and 100 years from now( if they are still around) they will be whining and sniveling. Like I said, they can’t help it
Mike,
Remove the hunting, remove all management, I’m for it, because I want to see who you blame next.
Those of us who have been following developments in Northern Rockies Grey Wolf restoration since the mid-70′s when they were first listed ( by a Republican administration I might add ) would not have believed the Wyoming dual-status special interest wolf plan is close to becoming law ; not in a thousand years. If I had read this article back in even 1995 when aactual reintroduction was ramping up, I still would not have believed it was of this Earth . From some other Star Trek alternate Universe maybe where Klingons are the good guys. Maybe SyFy Guy can illuminate us on that if he dare come out from under his Troll bridge in the noonday sun.
Only 8 posts into the comment thread and we are at DefCon 4 in the thermonuclear name calling , ” personalization” and polarization of a broadly lit public topic…
Godwin’s Law– all fervant discussions on internet comment threads eventually resort to someone calling someone else a Nazi— seems to have become a du rigeur when the topic at hand is wolves.
On days like this I am ashamed to be Homo sapiens , because that ” sapient” part is rare in these parts. So many trolls…
I believe that wolves will thrive in idaho/Montana regardless if they are hunted or not. Wolves will get a lot smarter once they are being shot at and will be A LOT harder to hunt. Wyoming is another story and I hope they scrap Wyoming’s plan and make wolves a trophy animal statewide. If not, keep them on the endangered species list. We don’t want rednecks having the right to shoot any wolf that happens to wander in the predator zone. I’d like to thank hunters for letting us use their pittsman robertson funds for reintroducing wolves. I have no doubt bringing wolves back will be considered one of the greatest wildlife success stories ever and hunter’s money made that possible…
Dewey,
You live there, you illuminate us. I do give you the benefit of the doubt as you are witness to your state, and your area. If you believe you are seeing a successful wolf-and all other predators relationship with their prey base, you’re seeing elk herd growth in the positive, I might be inclined to doubt the states biologists you apparently disagree with and take heed of your perspective over theirs. I think different areas obviously must be having different results. I am very unhappy with the results here, in my area, and very unhappy with IDFG.
I’ve waded through the conspiracy arena separating the wheat from the chafe, if you’ve not done that, why the constant negative comments towards me concerning my interest in truth versus nonsense? Not judging evidence without investigation are you ? If you have not studied it, how could you, being an intellectual, articulate superstar, have an opinion of any of that topic?
It seems to me, you are unhappy with government, are you nuts ?
(Retract the question, please. You were almost civil up to that last line…)
Elk herds in the Cody WY area are growing; way above objectives. And we have a LOT of wolves. I have just gotten new elk census numbers but have not yet digested them. The annual late summer aerial census of “local” elk is proceeding as we speak , and those numbers will be forthcoming in early September. I suspect the trend will hold: elk herds growing but demographics skewed. It isn’t a matter of Not Enough Bulls, it’s a matter of Too Many Cows.
The unbalance in the elk herds is/has been due to poor management by Wyo G&F;… overhunting of trophy bulls ; overreliance on Yellowstone migratory elk as a feed stock ; failure to manage “local” elk for sustainability apart from migratory ; unbalance induced by acquiescing to ranchers over the crucial needs of wildlife ( winter range issues) ; just plain managing elk herds for financials, not biologicals. It’s a long list.
The wolf is the best 24/7/365 wildlife manager out there, if we humans would only allow it to be. There’s plenty of game , but nobody wants to pay $ 6000 for a guided cow elk hunt, do they ? But why should any of us throw our support behind the narrow economic interests of outfitters if it means sacrificing other values equally worthwhile but harder to put a dollar value on ? Why doesn’t Wyoming address the issue of TOO MANY OUTFITTERS in a confined space when their economic model is so poor ?
I am very unhappy with Wyo F&G;, as you seem to be unhappy with Idaho’s elk farmers. It wasn’t that long ago that I was a huge supporter of Wyo G&F;. What changed? Politics, pure and simple. Then along came the wolf and the big wedge was driven. My state wildlife agency went over to the Dark Side just to keep its paychecks coming.
Wyoming’s professional game managers are mighty poor WILDLIFE managers as it turns out, because they a re money driven rather than following accepted conservation and biological methodology these days. The wolf can go a long ways towards correcting that and will do more to restore the viability and diversity and strength of resident elk herds; just not at the artifically high “put and take” numbers of elk heretofore that have been wrongfully driven to appease the hunting public and especially the commercial outfitters.
I am trying to espouse the longterm view of wildlife management in Wyoming…fifty years plans. Nobody invested in wolves or elk seems to be able to see further ahead or behind than a single season, and that does not work. One year, one incident is next to meaningless on the requisite time scales of genuine wildlife conservation, especially in the face of climate change and curve balls like pine beetles as a result of that. But it takes several generations of hunters to get where we need to go from the mistakes and bad policies of the past. The wolf is critical to the future if you also want elk, because the two species are codependent on each other , if we are doing it right by them and allow them to both be agnostic towards humans.
Man is the last animal to get it , to figure it out. And the very last to realize he’s not the solution but rather the problem. The BIGGEST component of the problem, actually.
Teddy Roosevelt’s vaunted North American Wildlife ( Big Game it isn’t) Conservation Policy is in need of a dire overhaul, to version 2.0 And that revision just doesn’t want wolves in abundance, it needs them.
If you can’t deliberate on that argument, there’s nothing more I can say to you.
The enemy of wildlife is men , not wolves.
Yeah, I get it, and agree with most of it. Sounds like Central and Southern Idaho management pre and post wolves, except they killed too many does and cows here, especially in the control hunt units which were once the type of hunts where the opportunity existed for the large bull or buck, several of us filed our complaints during IDFG meetings concerning over killing of does and cows in those units, to no avail, they ignored us.
I can’t help but think geographical differences of some areas might turn out different results concerning predation issues, it seems to me Wyoming should have one season statewide because the open range country is to easy for men to hunt. Where here its vertical right off the porch. Another aspect of my experience here is those controlled hunts often relied upon migrating ungulates leaving open hunt units from some pressure, but most often snow.
I’ll retract and change the question, if we are dissatisfied with government and vigorously work to expose the problems and demand solutions, are we nuts? Ha ha. I think some of us just do it on different levels.
There won’t be much success killing wolves here, like I’ve said before, my observations over the years, including witnessing the declines in elk, deer, the wolf population explosion ended here, where I am living and hunt, in 2007-8.
For me personally, this decline here is unacceptable. Right wrong, still unacceptable. Huge area, most of it is expert hiker type off trail very vertical geography, with far less elk now.
Note from moderator: Certain comments in this thread have been closed and the user banned due to inflammatory remarks. Please play nice, whichever side you’re on.
I can understand with Wyoming’s history how anti-predator they are…..These Wyoming values….At least these values do not represent the majority of Americans in this country. I just wish Obama had appointed anyone but Salazar, to think the Federal government would condone a shoot on sight policy in 2011…..It is unbelievable…. I remember this one hunter commented that 10 breeding pairs 100 wolves outside Yellowstone was “unacceptable” in Wyoming. What planet are these people from? There is 150,000 elk in Wyoming.
sometimes I read these wolf articles I just die laughing.
Salazar is the best Sec or Int in a long time.
Hunters for Obama!
I guess outside the zone you wouldn’t even need a small game license. Out of staters who feel like shooting a wolf would be welcome to it.
oh…that worthless article from a few months ago.
I don’t agree with a lot of that article. COnsider the source. I have the same numbers. How grossly unfortuante that the Cody ELk Task Force is made up entirely of professional or avid hunters, and ranchers, only. Plus the Game & Fish guys, all of whom are from the hunting and taking of elk side of the equation. The nonconsumptive elk advocates or Other Wildlife intrests are not even at the table. It’s a straw group for hunting and ranching interests. Elk lose coming and going.
But having said that , there’s something that happened this year that will very likely skew the Cody area elk herd count for years to come. The rivers stayed treacherously high for many weeks longer than normal, and I fear many elk calves were lost trying to swim the rivers on the migration back to YNP or Thorofare or….
That’s why the current late summer pre-hunt aerial elk census is so important.
subspecies matter very little. Wolf experts consider subspecies irrevelant. Gray wolves from Canada were already coming down into the northern rockies on their own. There is evidence to support this. Importing is not the right term, it’s reintroducing wolves to where they once roamed before the white man extirpated it.
Those mexican wolves are gray wolves. There is a lot of concern for the mexican wolves because humans are illegally killing them. There was already evidence that showed gray wolves from Canada were already migrating on their own into the northern rockies well before wolf reintroduction.
Importing is not the right word to describe wolf reintroduction. it was a reintroduction. There were wolves coming down from Canada on their own years before wolf reintroduction. These were the wolves that people thought were irremotus. Majority of Montana’s wolf population came from Canada. They did not import then. Wolves naturally migrated on their own. It is ridiculous to argue subspecies because even the most well known wolf experts in the world admit that subspecies matter very little.
So we interfered with human management of a naturally occurring process, the natural wolf migration into the Rockies from Canada apparently wasn’t occurring fast enough to suit some men, so they managed to speed the process up. And we are told all management of wild life must change for the betterment, preservation, of all wild life. No eating the zoo animals. lol. No you stupid hunters cannot manage all wild life for a shared balance. Fido needs that meat, you don’t. Thanks for funding our interference of the natural process, shut up, get lost.
hey rick…..if wolf experts don’t concern themselves with subspecies……why all the ta do in the Great lakes? Or is it they don’t concern themselves with it when it is convenient to ignore it?
You people are always talking out of both sides of your mouths. Science of convenience. It applies here, but not there.
I am sure they would have tried the same thing here to attempt to keep them delisted, had they not spent 16 years trying to convince people they never violated the ESA and a wolf is a wolf is a wolf.
There is some evidence emerging that shows they were moving wolves out of Northern Canada and dumping them off just north of our border. It might explain why they all of a sudden decided to ‘migrate’ south after 50 years of just standing there looking over the border. Or were they really here all along?
And of course we all know now that Bangs was dumping his problem wolves in NW Montana long before he admitted it, an interesting migration south from southern Idaho to NW MT.
Dewey says “Without the radio collars and helicopters, the playing field would be level , advantage Wolf.”
That’s an interesting comment Dewey, are you saying we are incapable of removing wolves without collars and helicopters?
Or are you just taking another emotionally driven cheap shot? It seems it was largely accomplished once before without either of those.
Your wolf will be okay, the laws are in place to insure it will continue to be in the lower 48. Maybe not at the insane levels most wolfies would desire, but the species will be do fine and populations will remain within the science that was written to consider them recovered.
Where elk are concerned, we really need to start counting them as we do wolves, and referring to their numbers as we do wolves. Let me be the first……….Idaho has “at least” 50 elk.
And that is about as accurate as the wolf counts are.
Or do we use the SAME models they concocted for counting elk? You have to love those models, just change the programming to spit out whatever result you desire. It is very interesting that those models were changed just prior to the wolf relocation.
I suspect nobody who has spent any time thinking of this problem has ever doubted the wolf would eventually be eradicated by the same kind of people who did so in the last century…
I often wonder why people refuse to accept that wolves can migrate on their own into other states. Most of us know this is true, but yet, there are some who refuse to believe that this can happen. Wolves can travel very long distances and yet someone doesn’t believe that wolves can migrate from Canada into the northern rockies on its own. I will just leave it at that and with a comment made by Dr. Valerius Geist. I guess when you’re a conspiracy theory nut, the truth or reality seems to matter very little.
“It may be worth mentioning that the wolves were actually well on the way from coming all on their own from Canada into the western states. There were wolves killed already south of Yellowstone and that was well before the re-introduction ever took place into Yellowstone. So they were coming on their own and the re-introduction just simply speeded things up.”
So, as you see, whether wolves were brought back by humans or not, they were well on their way down on their own from Canada as admitted by Dr. Valerius Geist.
Theoretical – Wolves migrated to the Idaho/Montana Rockies from Canada, some arrived in Wyoming. Unless you have a documented study, radio telemetry data, its an assumption. Another theory is the wolves were not completely eradicated in the late 19th Century early 20th Century era. Other theorists (Maughan) conclude that wolves were not being territorial, just wandering through, no evidence either just another unsubstantiated assumption. Myself and others observed pack activity in Central Idaho during the late 60s, through the 70s. This led to my wolf fascination to the level of purchasing a Canadian Timber Wolf pup, and hanging with him until he was fourteen years old. I probably have a much larger compilation of data concerning conspiracy theories, and real conspiracies substantiated with rock solid proof than anyone else posting here. Nice theory Tony.
Bravo, Jule Banville, Bravo
it’s an assumption? You’re telling me that wolves from Canada never ever have migrated down to the northern rockies on their own from Canada even though it is well known that wolves have been moving into places like Oregon and Washington from Idaho and BC? Look at the comment I posted by Dr. Geist. There is no doubt what so ever that over the years, wolves from Canada eventually found their way into Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc.
“You’re telling me that wolves from Canada never ever have migrated down to the northern rockies on their own from Canada ”
Nope, that would be theorizing, I think they probably did, so does Val. I’m pretty sure wolves travel by truck, and Helicopter also, its that management thingy again.
Strange, why would wolves walk past abundant elk, seeking abundant elk. Oh looky, I theorized a tad.
I’m talking about people whose lives are dedicated to eradication of anything which does not fit into their narrow world-view.
This article is really a disappointment. Not once does Brodie concede that maybe Wyoming (and all other states) might have a right to determine game management policies, including setting socially acceptable boundaries on their presence.
The war is really not on wolves, or about wolves, but about a far larger issue, that of self-determination, which in turn is a fundamental right of not only governments, societies, cultures, but of individual citizens.
Wyoming has chosen to fight for that right, with wolves being the catalyst — no more, no less. And I support Wyoming’s leaders and citizens for doing so.
So, Dave, who speaks for the wolves ? Do not wildlife also have fundamental rights and self-determination ? Why is it all so anthropocentric with you guys, like Homo sapiens calls all the shots on this planet and makes all the rules for the other 3 million species ?
Show me the law on that ( and please don’t quote Genesis 1: 20-27 or anything like that ).
Wolves are not a state’s rights issue…but they might be a state’s wrong. In Wyoming’s case, that’s ferdamnsure.
The party’s over. The government is broke and not far from collapse. When that event occurs everything you think you know, most of it being nothing but an elaborately constructed facade, will disappear like dust in the wind and so will 80% of the commentators on this blog. The majority of you have never had a job that ever produced anything tangible nor anything of measurable value. In general terms you are little more than parasites living off the structural legacy built by long-dead progenitors and your daily existence is a dream state where you actually believe your opinions in a collapsing world have merit. The days of leeching off the productive are coming to an ignominious and unfortunately dystopic end, with mass starvation to be endemic and blood shall run in the streets.
There is no more money and in truth there hasn’t been for decades. It’s all a debt-wrapped lie and you chose to believe it.
Hell is coming and we brought it on ourselves. We have a warfare-welfare state that has spent decades robbing its own citizens, and since 1971 we’ve robbed the world to pay for our debt-fueled largess. As a nation we now manufacture virtually nothing and have become a debt-laden, materialist culture, importing our egos from abroad. Even those who claim to eschew such somehow manage to find the monies and the time to drive their kids thousands of miles across Idaho and Montana for junior league hockey and nature hikes in far-flung locales. Others pride themselves on their trips to Moab with the kiddies for bicycling vacations, ignoring Abbey’s comments that he would rather have the ranchers and miners back than the self-righteous yuppie scum that have invaded the Colorado Plateau. I remember Moab back in the 1970′s and you people have loved it to death. It is destroyed. “Movements” are driven by “present moment consciousness” and institutional memory has been cast to the wind.
Orwell was right. Huxley was right. The Leviathan you helped create will be the monster that will destroy us tomorrow, and damn near the whole lot of you will not see it until the moment you are devoured. At least, you shall think and think wrongly, “I meant well.”
John- I don’t know where that came from. We are talking about how a state like Wyoming thinks they can justify killing predators to benefit ranchers and outfitters, call it based in science, call it a states right, and say it all with a straight face.
Maybe you should retire back to your underground bunker
John,The wolves gotta eat.
I got it now Todd, it’s the liberals “rabble rousing” against anyone who works and saves…..Your post makes absolutely NO sense. Everyone knows that wolves are “socialists” who were recruited by Van Jones as part of a bigger conspiracy to facilitate the demise of “conservativism” and “capitalism” and the “hunting heritage” one 4H lamb at a time. As far as the food to eat comment I would starve before I would buy meat to support ranchers in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.
I corrected some of your misspellings.
And…..as far as the failed claim that it is always the ‘wealthiest’ citizens complaining, I have names of dozens of citizens here whom are anything but well to do, that have lost private property to these wolves that they could hardly afford to lose.
No recourse, no reparations, nothing, just loss of some of what little income and property they have.
But, it is easier to try and marginalize the well off, while ignoring the middle and lower class. Boy Wilma, how hypocritical are you in your ‘progressive’ views. Maybe you could cut the check for the losses these people have suffered. No?
And at the root of the entire argument lays the FACT, wolves were never an endangered species in the first place. Let us not forget, Bangs had to prove that before he was even allowed to remove a wolf from Canada.
We have politically protected a faux endangered species from day one’
Experimental? Not anymore
Non-Essential? Absolutely.
Sir, wolves are non-essential? is that the opinion of a hunter? No surprise there! You’re right, wolves are not considered an endangered species if you look at the numbers of worldwide wolf #s, but the wolf’s prey, deer and elk are also considered non-endangered. Infact, there are millions of deer and over 300,000 elk in the united states. Both of these prey species outnumber wolf numbers by far.
And wolves in the northern rockies were considered an endangered species prior to wolf reintroduction there and that is why wolf reintroduction happened.
You’re right Barry, the wildlife belongs to ALL of the citizens of Idaho, not just the HUNTERS who think they own the wildlife. Wildlife viewing should be the top priority, not hunting.
Wolves in Idaho are not overpopulated. That is a myth that is constantly spread by those who don’t want wolves in Idaho. The agenda of the Idaho hunter is very clear. Kill wolves, so we can kill more deer and elk. Idaho covers 83,574 square miles. Basically for every 119 square miles, you’ll find a wolf. Total state population is around 1,523,816 people, and for every square mile you’ll find 18 people.
Hmmmmmm? Wonder where the genetic biodiversity of whatever moose, elk or deer is going to end up. They are slipping in the grand scheme of things. Around here anyway.
Seems like there are more of the canids than the ungulates. like true canines, wolves hunt in packs.
kind of difficult to be a moose, bull elk or anything else when there are 6- 10 wolves on your butt, taking turns.
Just my opinion. See it daily.
In January,2000 at great expense, we hired Dr. Robert Taylor { & 2 other Ph.Ds , Dr.’s Kay & Mitchell , to the tune of $17,000}. Dr Robert Taylor is an Endangered Species Act specialist and former Yellowstone Park scientist who also worked as a consultant for the logging community and the saw mills etc. that were impacted by another phony “Endangered Specie” the spotted owl.
The spotted owl, like the wolf, is a bio weapon targeting rural people and their ability to work,live, own property and recreate in rural areas.Families were destroyed,unemployed logging people died from suicide, substance abuse, etc.when all the mills were shut down and the entire Pacific NW timber industry essentially destroyed forever; now those forests burn in cataclysmic fires. NEPA was supposed to protect them. It did not.
Dr Taylor predicted Jan. 11, 2000 to an audience of 600 including U.S. Senator Conrad Burns and Lt. Governor Martz and representatives from Rep. Rehbergs’ office and the heirarchy of Mt. FW&P;and USFWS wolf project coordinator Ed Bangs at the Mt FW&P;hosted “Predator Management Symposium” in Billings, that the wolf program would end in violent bloodshed. Eleven years ago this was considered unthinkable and “extremist” . Dr. Taylor is too classy and smart to now say, “I told you so” . The permanent record should reflect that Dr. Taylor in a letter written on behalf of FOTNYEH ,asked Ted Turners’ man Rep. Mike Phillips who aspires to be in the Montana Senate to facilitate adaptive management meetings and negotiations back in 2000. Phillips said “no” in writing.
To debate ad nauseum the Progressive left, the pro wolf freaks, the bureaucrats , the NGO’s, academia, or give any credibility to anything that they assert, is simply being sucked into their meaningless & dillatory “critical theory” debate.
Face it folks, we are at war for the survival of the American West. Those on our side who piss away time & energy being diplomatic, posturing as the cool headed centrist to pamper his own vanity & ambition or playing “smartest guy in the room” 15 years later with wolf populations still growing at a 30% rate is sabbotaging any chance “our side” has left .
Signed by the 3,742 members ,
Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd,Inc.
.
FRIENDS of the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd ? Hardly , if you ultimate goal is to assure that America’s first national park and sanctuary is just a factory for ungulates that you and your “friends” can shoot to kill just outside its borders…
“Wildlife Cynics R-Us”, maybe.
I would ask Fanning if the science he bought and paid for was ever peer reviewed or challenged by other academics. When , where, published as such ?
‘Fanning’ the flames, he’s long forgotten why he started the fire in the first place.
What a fraud. Doesn’t it make you all warm and fuzzy to know tht Conrad “Rider boy” Burns is still involved in wildlife issues in the West?
Barry, please use your brain. The wolves in the northern rockies were considered endangered because there was so few of them left. You ask why this is, it’s obvious, because of humans nearly killing them off. That is why wolves were reintroduced. Look at the worldwide wolf population, no, the wolves aren’t considered endangered, but this is the northern rockies here and since there were little wolves left, they were obviously considered endangered in the NORTHERN ROCKIES. When welfare ranchers stop depending in the taxpayer to fund predator control, then I will listen to those who want the eaja gutted or reformed. Although it’s well known that hunters aren’t the conservationists they claim to be as they don’t care about conserving some species such as wolves, we owe them a thank you as it was their money from the pittsman robertson funds that paid for wolf reintroduction.
Friends of the northern yellowstone elk herd, everytime I hear this joke of an organization brought up, it makes me laugh. I mean if the elk could talk to Mr. Fanning, would they tell him that friends don’t shoot their friends. Mr. Fanning is no friend to elk. He only cares about shooting them.
I’ve noticed that whether it’s wolves or mice… those against wildlfe protection are ALWAYS on the side that preserves their right to KILL one form of life or another…. except people of course, except ~ of course ~ people that might step onto their “sacred” private land and look cross-eyed at them. It’s all about the KILL for the anti-protection crowd. “I’ve got a gun and I ain’t afraid to use it.” Gimme a break! What is this? A bad TV western?
Post an article on wolves and predict who will provide comments.
Wolves certainly do not bring out the best in homo sapiens.
One more time, there were wolves from the east coast to the west, what happened to the wolves there, did the Wyoming and Montana rachers wipe them out in the 18 and 19th centuries without your permission? Why are you guys only worried about wolves out here, we cannot support enough to make up for what you did away with in your own locality.
If cattle ranchers are welfare ranchers, I guess that makes all beef eaters welfare food recipients too doesn’t it? Or do you think that ranchers can and should raise their beef and sell it for less that it cost to raise so you eat at a reasonable price.
Once more why are enviros targetting the food and energy producers, which will mean shortages and high costs in both for consumers?
Todd— it’s pretty hard to defend welfare ranching. Just as it is hard to defend agrioculture subsidies in general and especially those that funnel the greater part of the subsidy to the large oeprator or the corporate operator.
I’m not a welfare beef consumer if I eat Wyoming beef , because I’m not, and I generally try not eat Wyoming beef to begin with. I only eat local beef from those ranchers who are expressly tolerant of predators and don’t actively seek and recieve undue subsidies.
When the Wyoming Stockgrowers and western cattlemen’s associations drop their boneheaded antiquated attitude towards predators and especially wolves, I would be happy to purchase their product. I care little that they are Socialists in flannel and Stetson , because most of the beef I buy comes from socialist countries anyway …Brazil, Canada, Argentina. No different here.
The amount of subsidy we lavish on our western ranchers is outright socialism. Admit it. And they produce so LITTLE of the nation’s beef supply to start with. How much Wyoming-grown beef is actually sold in Wyoming anyway, if you don;t do your own cutting and wrapping …it’s all shipped to the out of state feedlots than put into the corporate packing industry pipeline. That pound of burger you bought at Wal-Mart might have meat from a thousand different cows in it.
We enviros do not “target” all ranchers , and we certainly do not do it to imperil our own food supply. We do it to reform the cattle industry and bring it into the 21st century . The real ire and activism should rightfully be directed at the packing plants and corporate meat industry , and Food Inc. , not the small rancher. But that small rancher cannot have it both ways, either.
In last night’s Cody Enterprise, top of the fold, was a story about a horse killed on the South Fork by a grizzly. That much is off topic for the purposes of this article, HOWEVER—the closing statement by the rancher who lost the horse says it all . He says dealing with bears [ and by rote, wolves] is a fact of life in ranch country : ” “I’m sure we have grizzlies on our property 365 days a year,” Bales said, adding that he and his family members have never felt personally threatened by the bruins. ”
Cattle losses due to wolves and even bears are so small as to be a virtual zero in the statistical Big Picture. yes, the individual rancher is impacted when he loses stock, but that animal can be lost in many ways, not just by predation. Given that western higher elevation ranching is always marginal in even the ” best ” years, you have to asky why the rancher would even want to stake his life on an economic model so fraught with uncertainty and potential issues. Wolves and grizzlies are just two of many, many things that can ruin your rancher day . But since wolves and grizzlies also have a positive value and are needed in their own place, the rest of us citizens and taxpayers should not be held hostage to paying the rancher’s bail and balance when there are alternative ways and means. It’s simply not fair to the rest of us to support western ranching wholesale and guarantee that rancher a paycheck regardless of the final fate of his stock. Animals are raised to be slaughtered. Sometimes you get paid for that , sometimes you don’t— it’s called ‘ Cost of doing business’.
Ranchers are not owed a living, especially when they use so much public resource and pay so little for it.
If only I could get the equivalent of those generous subsidies and tax breaks….
Dewey, good for you if you only buy your beef directly from ranchers that you know do nto graze public land. I am sure neither Wal-Mart nor Albertson’s can tell you if a specific package of meet came from grazed cattle directly or indirectly. Teh fact remains that raising the cost of raising beef will put some ranchers out of business unless the selling price increases proportionally, once there is a diminished supply of meat, the price will do exactly what the price of gas has done….zoom up.
Everyone who uses public land receives benefit for themselves, I maintain that those producing fuel and food transfer that benefit to all of us. I cannot see any benefit from recreational users to anyone except themselves.
Todd, if you cannot see the economic benefit of the recreational user ,
Why does a public land activity have to produce a saleable raw commodity before it counts for something? That is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o- narrowminded. The guy who guides wild horse viewing tours has three employees , two vans and an office, and grosses well over $500,000 a year. That probably beats the economic contribution of a few cheep or cattle hands down , and he takes nothing away from the land in doing it. Just one example.
All work and no play…..
By your (il) logic, we should convert Yellowstone Park to geothermal greenhouses and grow tomatoes yearround , graze nonnative English cattle there, log it, mine it , hunt it , ad
oh never mind…it is impossible to have a reasonable discourse with you .
absurdum.
How much does he pay to take visitors to public land to make all of that money? You are the one putting a price on what one group should pay to sue the land….ranchers. Either the governmetn needs to make money from the land or it doesn’t. Ranchers and mineral extractors PAY $$$$$ to use the land, the rest of us do not.
or put another way, Todd…it takes 100-150 acres of public lands to sustain one cow in Wyoming. it takes 1 acre in Georgia or Tennessee.
The rancher who has a state or federal grazing allotment is paying nowhere near the true cost to the PUBLIC for his graze. he gets $ 500 worth of meat packed on and gives the US Treasury only $ 5.40 for it. Such a deal. Grazing fees are an insult.
Every cow and sheep grazed on public land could disappear tomorrow and the market would barely flinch, and the shelves would still be stocked. Do you have any idea how many total Cow-Days are spent on public lands by the nation’s beef and dairy herds in a year ? It’s less than 2 percent, Todd.
By the way , we ALL pay to use public lands.Banish that notion once and for all, just because you don’t pay an admission fee at the gate or have to buy a permit. We all pay. It’s called ” taxes”. Commonwealth . Distributed costs. PUBLIC lands.
Yes, we do ALL pay taxes, including those you guys want to call welfare ranchers. Well all except the non taxed “non profits” raking in over a billion dollars per year. The “welfare ranchers” PAY CASH, in addition, plus they provide open water and grazing for wildlife in the winter. Please list teh things that green groups provide for wildlife….themselves, not what they insist other folks provide. By the way environmental groups file law suit after lawsuit and DRAIN the resources of the governmental agencies managing these lands.
Todd, there are attempts being made to reintroduce wolves in the east. There may even be very small number of wolves in some eastern wolves as we speak, so don’t feel that you westerners are getting picked on. If your forefathers did not basically exterminate the wolf from the west, wolf reintroduction would have never had to happen. You reap what you sow. It’s very easy to blame environmentalists for bringing the wolf back to western states, but the blame should be placed on your forefathers who had a hand in wiping out the wolf in the first place. Maybe as humans, we need to think about our past decisions and what those decisions will bring for the future. You wipe the wolf out again, it will be brought back. It has a right to exist and prosper just like all living creatures on this planet.
Rob, in the first place why do you say MY forefathers wiped out wolves? Please provide me with some proof of what my forefathers did. Maybe it was YOUR forefathers out here hunting in the wild west. Lots of city easterners came out here and shot everything they saw. Are you also saying that MY forefathers wiped out your wolves? Why would a wolf plant work better in Wyoming than back east…..maybe because we are more tolerant? The fact is the wolves have over populated the area far beyond what is reasonable. Did enviros lie thru their teeth when they said they needed 30 packs totalling 300 wolves in teh 3 states. It really seems that while they are calling us names and accusing dead folks who cannot answer them of all sorts of stuff, that perhaps they are covering up the fact they had no intention whatsoever of honoring their word.
Wow, is this thing still going?
Whatever the case, the facts are that Wyoming is about to score it’s legitimate rights. Then people like Dewster are going to have to go back to the old ways of trying to convince fellow citizens that XX number of wolves in AA region are a good thing. Kind of the way a free society works.
No more imposition of unacceptable burdens upon others via the law, because the law is going to change. And that’s a good thing.
Dave nice post…..if one reads this thread from beginning to end & believes the likes of Dewey, he would think that wolves have a PhD in biology, wildlife management & forestry. According to them the wolves and only the wolves know the correct amount of elk on the landscape….
So I guess that would mean that the wolf is telling us that the Northern Elk range of Yellowstone (Millions of Acres) can only hold around three thousand elk (4600 elk with calf ratio’s in the teens = 3000 some elk at the most )…..
Dewey , I’ll let the folks here in Wisconsin know that your superior wildlife biologist the wolf will be dictating population levels of our whitetail. I’m sure most land owners here will be disappointed to know that the wolf will likely bring in a new population goals of 4 deer per square mile as they have implimented in some zones already. Most land owners in Northern WI were use to what the highly paid armature state biologist says. (15 deer per square mile)
Dewey, Maybe you could have the head (alpha) wolf send a memo to our DNR & inform them that the biologically sustainable goals they had set back in the 1940′s are no longer the rule of the land! That sustainable natural resource we love here is now going to be feed to the dogs!
Nature balances itself…. if we allow it. Trouble is… many humans don’t want natural balance. Many humans want nature to serve humans exclusively. That’s where the trouble begins.
WPGP, the problem is what is letting nature balance itself. For instance wolves were already documented in all 3 states, but they “weren’t enough” and “fast enough” according to enviros who demand control over everything.
Dave Skinner both of your articles in the new Range Magazine are great, the photos are pretty stark. Makes one wonder who is greedy, the person finding their animals torn apart that way or the folks who insist they deserve to have wolves every where.
Ron….Use your brain. If a wolf is a wolf is a wolf, then the species was NOT endangered. It is a political ploy and definition that isolates it to a region. These wolves are not, nor have they even been endangered, period. No other species was considered endangered with such high global populations. Bald eagles were DELISTED at a worldwide population of 50,000. There were more than 4 times that number of wolves just in North America and Russia alone the day Ed dumped his dogs in Idaho.
You can twist a political argument anyway you want, but from a biological standpoint you have nothing. A bad and unconstitutional law, written by politicians and abused by welfare lawyers.
You need to go back and read what I said. I will say it again and maybe this time, you will understand it. The gray wolf was considered endangered in the NORTHERN ROCKIES as there were few wolves left prior to wolf reintroduction. Them being endangered in the NORTHERN ROCKIES is why wolves were brought back by humans. You’re right. gray wolves were never considered endangered as a whole, but in some places where there are few wolves, they are considered endangered in those places. That is the beauty of the endangered species act. It protects species where they are, not based on the total # of wolves in the united states or even world.
Oh Dewey, how hypocritical of you. You take a pot shot at scientists and then try and hide behind some real bought and paid for faux science.
And again Wilma, you make some serious assumptions. I haven’t hunted elk since 1995, at which point I realized we had a serious problem on our hands, I turned to hunting predators to do my part in protecting our resource. You see, I am the one you really hate, for I am the predator of the ones you worship. I am an elk lover, a deer lover, a moose lover, I even love the predators when at appropriate populations. I love all wildlife, and I will not over look the whole for the one. Nor will I buy into false science when I know it to be false.
Sadly it is fools who can not see that an uncontrolled non-human predator can be successful in creating any sort of balance in our modern limited ecosystems, it is only fools who can not see that we are in the midst of a atrocious mistake. The same thesis that Dr. Mech asked, had been answered, and yet it seems it is only him who will be honest about it. Natural balance in a multi-prey ecosystem is a fallacy. They based their failed science on the Isle Royale model where only one prey animal and one predator resides. That model does not exist in the RMW, and before we see any type of results that would mimic it in any way, we will have to remove all other prey species, cattle and humans from the ecosystems here. I hate to break this to you, but that isn’t going to happen sweetheart. Wolves have already permanently removed one species from the Idaho landscape, and that is more than should have been accepted.
You people should have listened to Mech a long time ago, he warned specifically about the very situation we are in, and he was spot on. the only thing is, the welfare lawyers were making way to much money on it.
In all honesty, the best thing for the long term survival of your precious is to bring them into the management with all the other wildlife. Only emotionally intoxicated can not see that. You people are the real wolf haters, you are going to love them to death. Not one species has been hunted into extinction in North America in the last 90 years, including wolves. Whine about hunting all you want, the model has proven itself far more reliable than the fairy tale we see from the people who continue to clamor for wolf protection.
The Yellowstone elk herd is now lower than at anytime in recorded history, that can not be denied. The ‘experts’ predicted a 20% reduction, not 90% and falling. You want to fix Yellowstone? Open a hunting season and bring some real balance to the place. the most dire and sick ecosystems we have in the lower 48 are National Parks, so much for the benefit of the no human intervention or no hunting mentality.
When Yellowstone, Glacier and the others are empty, you will have no one to blame but yourselves and you will have no foundation in claiming any of your faux science valid. You people left science long ago and started clinging to legal loopholes to try and silence both the science and the truth.
Only a few weeks left before we begin correcting the worst mistake in wildlife management in this nations history. Do not mistake my pursuit of wolves as hate driven, it is merely my role in the ecosystem as the apex predator, capable of thinking outside of raw instinct, to apply the valid science to our proven management model. No wolves will be removed in hatred by me, but simply out of my understanding they need to be controlled so the other species may also prosper.
Dewey
I agree, lets remove the cattle. Then we have no need for the BLM as that is what they were created for. Then we can just return those lands to the states it rightfully belongs to.
You really want to talk about shortsighted positions, you want your cake and eat it too. ALL lands must be managed as YOU see fit, no multi-use, just your use. The government worshiping fools who believe in non-management as the new management are hilarious.
Just think about it, all that BLM land converted into real estate for the likes of JeffE to pedal for trophy homes to the likes of Marvel. Cha Ching! Oh what a wonderful landscape that would make for the few. The very home you live in, destroyed wildlife habitat pal, the roads you drive on, the store you shop in, all of it. Yet you squabble over every piece of lands that cattle run on like they are the only ones who have ever affected habitat in any way. Those lands were set aside for THAT purpose, you want pristine wilderness? We have thousands of acres of that also, go see it.
Ron…..And you need to read what I said…..that is a POLITICAL listing, not a biological one. There aren’t many left in the metropolis’ of this country either, and wolves once roamed there also. Logic tells us, they do not fit everywhere, including unchecked in the limited ecosystems of the lower 48.
It really isn’t that hard to understand if you have more than one rung on your logic ladder. You just don’t seem to grasp that simple thought.
Listed by a politician, under a law written by a politician, in complete disregard for the species as a whole. There is a reason they were introduced as non-essential, they are. Under your logic, all species should be listed simply because they do not live inside NY city limits when at one time they did, sans rats
According to Todd, “enviros demand control over everything.” It’s not enviros that are demanding control over wolves (which is the topic of discussion here). Todd, you seem to be demanding to raise your rifle, set your crosshairs on the heart or head a magnificent animal, pull the trigger… and shoot it dead. Todd, that sir is control. You seem unable to handle the most basic truth of the matter. Killing an otherwise perfectly healthy wolf is the ultimate expression of control. It’s no wonder that you and others think humans are required to balance nature.
Four billion years of life on this planet, before the arrival of man, would beg to differ. Man did not create the ecological conditions necessary to bring about crude oil (which is evidence that life on earth did pretty well for itself before man came along to MAN~AGE it) any more than man brought about man himself. Your ilk tries to make gods of man. My ilk is at least humble enough to see mankind for what it is… flawed and not the creator nor the manager of nature. We are part of nature. Whether you believe we were created in an instant by an all-powerful God or purely an accident of evolution, or evolved over time by the hand of God, these facts remain: you are not God and mankind is not a collection of gods. Certainly wolf killers alone are not gods any more or less than wolf protecting enviros are gods. A wholesale lack of human humility has lead to the state our planet’s largely unbalanced ecosystems. Those humans that continue to believe and try to persuade others that humankind is more intelligent than God, than the sum of all nature, than the billions of years of evolution that came before us, and/or than the balance nature finds for itself are not humble nor informed on the laws of physics or biological matters. For example, Barry claims: “Sadly it is fools who can not see that an uncontrolled non-human predator can be successful in creating any sort of balance in our modern limited ecosystems, it is only fools who can not see that we are in the midst of a atrocious mistake.” Barry does not understand that any predator in a natural environment (without interference by man) is self limited. The natural predator/prey relationship is a self-limiting relationship. This is basic biology. As in physics, balance is the resting state of nature. The “atrocious mistake” humans are making lies in man’s effort to artificially determine how many wolves should live in a given space (or what the balance should be). The more we meddle the more we tangle nature’s natural web of life and the nature is programmed to achieve.
Barry goes on to say, “Natural balance in a multi-prey ecosystem is a fallacy.” Any biologist worth his or her salt knows this statement is utter nonsense. Natural systems are, without exception, a highly complex system of predator/prey relationships ranging from microbes to the highest trophic levels (top predators). Barry writes as if an authority on the subject but his own words betray him. His understanding of nature is poor because he cannot or will not understand how raw nature functions absent interference by man. He would make a good wildlife biologist (one, that is, that earns his/her living by man-age-ing wildlife according to artificial human criteria). NOTE: Not all wildlife biologists MAN~AGE WILDLIFE. Many of them actually study the raw nature of wildlife. The latter are the wildlife biologists that care about and best understand wildlife in the true sense of wild~life.
Barry also says, “Wolves have already permanently removed one species from the Idaho landscape, and that is more than should have been accepted.”
Barry, please elaborate on this topic. The more detail the better. I’m still listening.
Allow hunting in national parks? That’s stupid. If wild animals are not capable of balance, either are hunters. We all know hunters only care about artificially manipulating wildlife populations for their own benefit. It has nothing to do with balance. Never did, never will. There were 19,000 elk in ynp and now over 4,000. There were far too many elk. That is a 90% reduction in elk? people were complaining there were too many elk in ynp and that they were causing a lot of problems in the park overgrazing. This problem has been documented. Next I’m sure you will say that 19,000 elk in a national park weren’t overpopulated. Yellowstone is an example of how things were for millions and millions of years before the white man arrived.
“so the other species may also prosper.”
So you can kill them.
In my comment above: The sentence, “The more we meddle the more we tangle nature’s natural web of life and the nature is programmed to achieve.” Should read: The more we meddle, the more we tangle nature’s natural web of life and the ‘balance’ nature is programmed to achieve.”
Is Barry talking about elk? If he is, he’s mistaken. Going by his comments, he wants humans to control everything. He wants to let them hunt in national parks, places people go to watch wildlife not see it getting killed by a human with a high powered rifle.
“And the sticker shock has only been exacerbated by fears that wolves have cut elk numbers and by the overall state of the economy, said Virgil Moore, the new director of the agency that manages the state’s fish and wildlife.
Idaho hunters and outfitters have been telling anyone who would listen that wolves are “decimating” the state’s game herds.
Wolves are taking their share in some areas like the Lolo, but there are still a lot to go around, Moore said.
“We have ample elk in most of our zones,” Moore said.”
I find it rather hilarious how hunters whine about the wolves killing all of the elk. There is no doubt in my mind that wolves are better hunters than humans with guns. They are able to find elk while hunters on 2 legs whine about how they can’t find elk to kill. Kill wolves, so us hunters can kill more elk/deer/etc. Hunters have a tendency to exaggerate quite a bit whether it’s the size of wolves or their impacts on elk herds.
Barry says we should open up yellowstone to hunting. That’s all we need- degenerate trophy hunters with their questionable ethics wreaking havoc on these natural ecosytems. Face it barry, hunters are quickly losing their credibility with all their ethical lapses, lack of fair chase hunting ethic, canned hunting, hound hunting, wildlife penning, predator derbies and general anti-predator hate language. We will attack your hunting heritage make no mistake……
Am I seeing this right, this guy Barry wants to allow hunting in yellowstone? If you didn’t know any better, you’d think this guy was really Charles Kay. Another hunter who wants to allow hunters to shoot animals in national parks. Hunters want to control everything and they think they are the ones that own the wildlife since they pay to kill animals. Gray wolves were in North America way before humans. This is well known. Gray wolves and their prey co-evolved together. If wolves were capable of wiping out their prey species, why didn’t they do so thousands of years ago when wolves roamed in much larger numbers than today and when there were more prey than today? I notice everytime someone brings up this fact, the wolf hating hunter remains speechless and runs away and avoids the question. Hunters want to be the only predator on the landscape, but that is just never going to happen. Wolves, cougars, bears, etc should have much more of a right to the wild game than hunters. They actually have no choice, but to eat wild game.
The only reason why we have limited ecosystems is because there are too many people on this planet and because of that, non-humans will and are going to suffer. It’s really sad and sickening to think about it. Make no mistake about it, we are destroying this planet and everything in it. Humans will be known as the worst environmental disaster that this planet as ever seen. As our population continues to grow and grow without any control, how do you think that is going to impact non-humans? It’s no surprise that we are causing species to go extinct. Humans are the worst predator of all and we do and cause far more damage to ecosystems than animals like wolves ever will.
When I was in the first grade there was a kid in second grade who had so terrorized his contemporaries that mere mention of his name at recess sent many of us back upstairs to the less worrisome presence of teachers and girls.
During the Christmas holidays my mother took my brother and I to visit one of her cousins who lived just across town. Turned out her son was the gangleader who had so terrorized me–and so many of the kids in first and second grades. My brother was not yet able to attend school; so was very charmed by the young terrorist. It only took a few minutes for me to join in their play; and I was never again intimidated by him.
But I didn’t join in with his gang of terrorists either. From then on I was able to play at recess without fear. And it was not long before the rest of the first grade boys were not any longer intimidated, either.
This crowd of anti-wolfers strikes me as reminiscent of my first-grade self. If they weren’t so fearful they could easily accomodate themselves to the presence of the unknown terror– and enjoy life without having to carry a rifle in the back of their pickup trucks…
Please, those of you who do not use fuel that has been extracted from the land, please send us how you do it….without using your computer of course. How are people going to access all of this land you want set aside for the enviros? You surely would not even consider driving a motor vehicle, how do you use your computer to tell those of us who provide your necessities if you are so good that you use none of the earth’s resources. Or did you think that the fact You precious ones use them non polluting?
Once more wolves were border to border and shore to short, so unless you take your share, you are the worst kind of hypocrite, forcing others to pay your share.
Not to worry Maureen. Humans will never be known as the worst environmental disaster that this planet has ever seen; because by the time history were to be written historians and readers will have become extinct also.
Excellent article Dave, one of the things that make a difference is delving into their figures. A few years ago the CST in Casper ran an article about all of the jobs in teh tourism industry. I wrote to teh state department that came up with those numbers pointing out that was a significant portion of the total population of the state, guess what the reported every job in restaurants I believe it was as being in the tourism industry…..year around. In other words every time we went out to eat, we became tourists. I have lost pretty much any faith in reports by researchers, they twist things to match what they want numbers to say.
I know of no species in Idaho that have been killed off by the wolves. besides, biologically, elk and deer are not anywhere near being endangered. Deer will never become endangered and elk won’t either.
I see the anti-wolf trolls are alive and well. Heard enough from these characters to know they only like to call names and get people riled. They have very little knowledge of the facts, but they’re not going to let that stop them.
It’s unfortunate indeed that these slime balls are mistaken for real hunters/sportsmen.
watching them tear a living animal apart.
That is kinda how nature works huh Todd?
Today, cow and sheep ranchers lease approximately 300 million acres of public land in 11 Western states. As Welfare Ranching authors George Wuerthner and Mollie Matteson report, “The combined area is as large as the entire Eastern Seaboard from Maine to Florida, with Missouri thrown in!” Approximately 90 percent of BLM land and 69 percent of land managed by the U.S. Forest Service is leased to livestock producers. Federally leased public land includes numerous national parks, wildlife refuges and other nature preserves.
It’s called “welfare ranching” because livestock ranchers are heavily subsidized with taxpayers” dollars. County, state and federal property is routinely leased to ranchers at well-below market prices. The federal grazing fee, for instance, “is notoriously underpriced, often eight to 10 times lower than fees charged on comparable private grazing land,” says Wuerthner. “For many years, the federal grazing fee has been set at $1.35 [per animal per month]—less than it costs to feed a gerbil for a month.”
In addition to dirt-cheap grazing fees, livestock ranchers are also the beneficiaries of low-interest farm loans, and taxpayers support them with emergency bailouts and other state and federally funded programs.
The ecological price tag for welfare ranching is steep, with many environmentalists and scientists now calling it the single most destructive use of public land in the country. “If you look at the cumulative effect of livestock production, no other human activity has a larger negative impact on the environment in the West,” says Wuerthner, who cites the effect on water quality, soil erosion, exotic plant invasions, and endangered or threatened animal species.
Thanks, Todd. On your first suggested article I didn’t see any discussion of wolves from a farming/ranching point of view, but I did see a tab for Animal Husbandry. I looked there to see if there might be any suggestions for protecting our herd from wolves, but no luck. I also saw a link to the American Farm Bureau, but they didn’t have any such suggestions either. To try to answer your question, it seems to me that if a wolf kills a cow, on average each American will lose the same amount of beef as when lightning or a motorist kills a cow, which happens hundreds (thousands?) of times more often. Maybe we should turn our hatred on motorists instead of wolves.
Thanks also for the reference to the Casper Journal article. Heartiest congratulations to Keanna “Keke” Kelly for winning the first “Try Award.” And if, as the article suggests, there is enough beef in Wyoming alone to produce ½ billion quarter pound hamburgers each year, then I guess if a wolf (or a motorist) kills a cow, Wyoming could be down to around 499,998,400 quarter-pounders that year.
But statistics like that only trivialize the effect of wolves on cattle. We all know that across the entire Northern Rocky Mountain region the effects of wolves on cattle are truly minimal compared to disease, weather and even motorists. However, to an individual rancher who loses several head of cattle to wolves it is not minimal at all. Killing a wolf doesn’t bring my animals back. That’s why I’m interested in the animal husbandry measures by which we could protect our livestock.
Wyoming, you may not like my view, but my view is defensible thorough science, yours is not. You rely on the simple argument that nature took care of itself for millions of years before man entered the landscape. But, you want to ignore the realities of the millions of species that perished into extinction during that time also.
Man has forever changed the landscape, on that I think we can all agree. the difference is, I am willing to accept that and the realities that those changes mean. We do not have even one COMPLETE ecosystem in the lower 48, therefore the fallacy that they will somehow fix themselves is ignorant. And even if they did, there would be no balance, we would continue to see species come and go just as we did before humans entered the picture.
Natural balance is an oxymoron, a fallacy, a pipe dream……a fairytale. It is perhaps the biggest lie ever perpetuated on the human race.
To further explain my other comment. One other lie shoved on us by welfare biologists is the claim that predators will never eliminate a prey species. That’s simply garbage science, and only applies to ecosystems that have one predator and one prey species. When more than one prey species inhabits an ecosystem, predator mediated competition will allow for the complete removal of all but one of the prey species. It is simple science and simple logic. And the only ecosystem I know of that exist is such a condition is Isle Royale, ironically the the mecca of created wolf science based on apples and attempted in an orange grove.
You let this wolf issue play out, deny management long enough, and I will be shown correct and you will be exposed as the worshiper of created and false science.
Natural balance….seriously. Banff, YS and the Lolo are perfect examples of my position.
Maureen……you are so wrong on so many points I am not sure where to start. First, it is obvious you are another human hater, why is it none of you people that scream overpopulation are ever willing to do your part in fixing your claim? What? You only want to remove OTHER humans and their families? Somehow yours is exempt? Get a grip on reality.
The hunters have not removed species sweetheart, your government did. Bison…..the governments war on the indians, not hunters. Wolves….the governments war on wolves. Elk? wow….elk now inhabit more areas in NA than they ever have. Thanks you hunters and your money.
You really need to do some research.
And to W.r.i.d.o.e. (whoa, that name is too long), you are aware that less than 2% of ranchers have public land allotments, right? To most ranchers it doesn’t matter that wolves roam those public lands.
Oh yeah Barry, I am a human hater because I simply state the reality of what our species is doing to the planet and to non-human species. I did not say hunters, I said HUMANS. Humans have wiped out numerous species. Call me a human hater because I expose the truth about what our species is doing to the planet and the environment and its non-human inhabitants you ignorant person.
Wyoming, on the loss of the species in Idaho. I am referring to the mountain caribou. We have had a struggling population here in North Idaho for decades. Since the wolves were dumped, they are gone, and the ones in Canada are also now in dire straights due to wolf predation. Many excuses have been used, but studies also show wolf predation to be the actual cause. No hunting or other factor can be honestly pointed to in this issue. Just another lost species in the predator mediated competition that includes unchecked wolves in the mix.
We lost a real threatened species in Idaho, now hinging on real endangerment throughout it’s habitat at the hands of a faux one. And people still want to think this wolf issue is about wildlife, nothing could be further from the truth. The real agenda….how about the 6.8 billion tax dollars that have been transferred to welfare lawyers working for camouflaged law firms known as 501(c)3′s
In all honesty, I have no issue with wolves having a place in our state, I just have an issue with the thugs that are using them as a tool. A tool of income and a tool to force their point of view on the people whom live here. They are just another animal, I have no ability to ‘hate’ an animal, it is not their faults cretins decided to exploit them. We just need to make sure they are not allowed to run amok outside of the parameters of the systems we have.
Remember, they were never “essential”, they were never truly “endangered”, they were considered scientifically recovered at 100. That was 9 years ago, I will never again be duped by dishonest people. I will never again trust or support anything put forth by these people, no matter how valid it may seem, as they have proven beyond any doubt they can not be trusted or believed.
We came into this by making a compromise, the wolf people are the ones that changed the goalposts right from the start. You do realize we are still keeping our original word? Even after ALL of the lies, deceit, corruption, stolen funds, and lost wildlife. We are still standing on our deal of allowing 50% more than the recovered number called for. And yet…..it is still NOT enough. Still the thugs demand unchecked, and complete protections for a scientifically and legally recovered animal. I am always amazed at the unwillingness of the pro wolfers to use logic and any form of character. They throw Molotov cocktails while we just want the original agreement honored. There may be those who wish the wolves removed, and then there are those who wish them to overrun the ecosystems to the point they end up starving off, neither of those positions holds any water. They are here to stay, that’s fine, but management is also prudent. When neither sides walks away completely happy, both sides usually walk away with something. You get your wolves, we get our lives back.
I am out of here…..I have scouting to do this weekend. The mountains await, and they are far better company that any of you
Some really good comments on here and some real good points brought up. there is no doubt that humans are the worst predator and the most destructive predator that this planet has ever seen. This cannot be denied as it’s very much obvious. We have made multiple animals go extinct and there are many more now that are endangered in becoming extinct and it’s all because of us, not wolves. While there are those who claim that the wolf is destructive to ecosystems, they will never ever compare to the destruction that we humans cause to ecosystems. What the wolf does is what it’s been doing in nature for many thousands of years and way before humans arrived on the planet. It is very clear who is the most destructive predator is on the planet and it’s not a canine with 4 legs and teeth, it’s a 2 legged predator .
The mountain caribou has been on the esl since the 1980′s, well before wolf reintroduction. I like it how you try to blame wolves for their low numbers when infact, humans are the ones that are responsible for the low mountain caribou numbers in the first place. The mountain caribou were transplanted from British Columbia into Idaho. Does that make them a non native species because they were transplanted into Idaho from Canada just like you claim with the “canadian” wolves? Mountain caribou are a non native species that were imported from canada into Idaho.
Oh Barry, you did not mention why those caribou were endangered in the first place. It wasn’t because of wolves and you know it. The caribou were already in trouble long before wolf reintroduction, but ofcourse, you would never dare admit this fact now would ya, just blame the wolves for everything right? The mountain caribou were imported from Bc, so does that make them canadian non native caribou just like you claim with the reintroduced wolves? Don’t be a hypocrite now.
The bottom line is the wolves are too destructive for greedy welfare wolf watchers that so desperately want them to actually deal with them where they live.
There will never be any agreement on the validity of the wolf plant when one side has all of the problems and all of the cost and the other side makes money and enjoys watching them and going home and leaving the problems behind.
It is a lie that wolves had not been in Yellowstone for 60 years, one was killed just outside of the park to the north when hit by a car in 1988, another was part of a pack of 5 animals killed by a hunter who mistook it for a coyote in 1992 in the Thorofare just outside, and that pack had been recorded by rangers inside of the park, but the info not publically released. One was videotaped and another still photographed shortly both inside of Yellowstone, before the wolves were loaded. Alston Chase mentions photos of a 6 pack taken in the 1960s inside of Yellowstone, I’ve not seen those photos.
They paid a bounty in Yellowstone during the time the NPS was in charge from 1912 to 1926, during that period they recorded bounties on 56 adults and 80 pups.
The Washburn Expedition estimated that they saw approximately 30,000 head of elk in 1871 during their expedition, granted it was during the time of rut when they would be the most visible. The did not see wolves although Mr Evarts who got himself lost for 30 days with out food or any way of taking care of himself did record hearing wolves howling the night before he was rescued when he wrote his memoir of that expedition some 30 years later. They did report frequent mountain lions.
Wyoming-
At some point you just realize that it is impossible to reason with some people. Barry knows that he is full of it. Calling my views “communist” or calling me a gender confused hater…..I have debated the facts with these “people”. They will always revert back to their ego driven mindless states rights “hunters know better” line. These hunters know squat. Anyone that doesn’t hold their archaic kill them to save them idea is either “communist” “foreign” or my favorite “anti”…
Barry is afraid to admit that it might well be one of his inbred dirty smelling relatives in that 1887 Wyoming picture……and he’s just like them
What makes liberals so sure that their “rights” will be protected from anyone not liking what they do any more than they are willing to allow our rights to raise food, hunt for food, etc all of the things they have decided they do not like? Eliminating the rights of people who live in a free society is starting down a slippery slope of eliminating all rights until only dictators remain. Your right to voice your opinion could be next if you try to eliminate those you disagree with.
With rights come responsibilities. Got a problem with that? Looks like some folks on this forum do have a problem… with that.
And not just responsibilities to humans, but to all life on earth. Can’t handle that? Find another planet.
WPGP, that sounds reasonable, how about enlightening us about your responsibilities and how you carry them out…..or are you irresponsible and free as bird from them?
Todd, since I didn’t get an answer from the other guy, I will ask you. Caribou were transplanted/imported from British Columbia to Idaho years ago. Does that make these imported caribou from Canada non native canadian caribou? Here is your chance to prove if you are a hypocrite on not because you have continuously said on here that the wolves from Canada were imported and non native here in the west.
If caribou were imported, they were imported, I really have no information about them so I cannot make any comments as to why they were imported. What has this to do with the wolves?
Can you tell us what si your responsibility to the environment that you yourself must do, not what you force soemone else to do in your place?
The caribou were imported because the caribou in Idaho were considered endangered much like the wolves in Idaho and that is why wolves were “imported” in the mid 90′s. There is a lot of fuss about “canadian” wolves being imported Todd, but why no fuss about caribou being imported from Canada into Idaho Todd? What we have is here species discrimination. It’s ok to import one animal from Canada as long as we like it, but it’s not ok to import an animal we don’t like (WOLVES) right Todd? Should we start calling the caribou that resides in idaho today canadian caribou Todd? This has to do with wolves because it is people like you who constantly argue that the wolves “imported” from Canada are non native canadian wolves. If you believe this to be true, then the caribou imported into Idaho are Canada are non native canadian caribou. Right Todd?
The computer said wolves would end brucellosis? Where did you get this from Todd? Wolves cannot stop the diseases that elk carry. Well, they can if they kill them. You talked about wolves spreading disease. What about elk spreading disease to rancher’s cattle? What are your thoughts on this?
William,
What you said about hunters is largely true of most of the entire species.
Homo sapiens have had it pretty much their own way since they dropped from the trees millenia ago. But, for that very reason, things are about to change again.
I am afraid their damage is so pervasive there will soon be no remnant of life to mark what this cooling ember had ultimately become.
That will be regrettable.
They are also insisting that wolves will prevent the spread of CWD. Just because no one knows exactly hwo the disease is sprad the wolves will stop it. This is one time I hope they are right.
No delusion WH … none at all! Apparently I’m not the only one that is sick of spending our environmental dollars on obstructionist….. We cannot afford your garbage any longer! I am almost certain we will see legislation before 2012!
ESA change is coming & apparently some of the biggest offenders are starting to back pedal. Keep pushing William you and your ilk are the make it that much easier to make grounds for change!
reality22, you’re right, we cannot afford welfare ranchers using taxpayer money for predator control. I for one am sick of welfare ranchers using my tax money to kill wildlife I want to see. I’m glad the wolves are killing the deer in Wisconsin. The deer are seen as varmints because of all of the damage they cause and killing people by crashing into vehicles.
Sorry sport- I spend probably more time in the wild than you. And I don’t need to kill stuff to feel good about myself. I won’t be coming to Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana soon though. You see, I have an aversion to rednecks, and you people make me very allergic. You people treat wildlife like shit too, so you don’t deserve my business
Oh William we will be heartbroken if you stay out of Wyoming…..NOT.
I wonder if this kind of backbiting had anything to do with the Civil War?–I’m looking fo a major fracture of our geography if Obama is elected again in 2012.
I find the right has come to celebrate the basest ignorance still weighing down on our civilization; but the left has become a bully as it pokes fun at that ignorance–instead of trying to educate…
Anyhow, we see you enjoy to cause the degeneration of any intellectual conversation. It stands to reason that Models for the Analysis of Population Structure concerning inbreeding would place the large population centers as the highest inbreeding coefficient and the correlation between genotypes within a subdivision. F-statistics are often equated to inbreeding coefficients that are defined as the probability of identity by descent from alleles taken to be unique in some founding population. However, we are led to infer from computer simulation and general historical considerations that all estimates from genotype frequencies greatly underestimate the inbreeding coefficient for alleles in the founding population of American Cities and highly populated Urban settings. You might be careful about pointing that inbred finger of yours around.
Why Michelle, that’s the nicest thing any over protector of wolves has ever said about me, thank you very much.
This could have been so simple and non controversial. Put the wolves with those who want them, not force someone else to raise them for wolf supporters to visit and go home. Those who feel no cost is too great to have lots of wolves would be happy to pay the cost.
As for boycotting Idaho spuds, if teh enviros keep working to destroy the food production in this country, we probably will not want you to have potatoes from anywhere….in fact there will not be enough to go around.
William Huuard, you know what is worse about Texas and also Wyoming, not only are we not PC, we are the states not running a deficit. How do you suppose that happens with so many conservatives in those states?
Welfare ranching on public lands is an abomination. ranchers should not be allowed to have their stinky non native cattle on public lands. If cattle are on public lands, they should be sos.
You see William….. that is where you and your cohorts have convinced yourself that your right. Looking at whole state statistics have nothing to do with the reality of what is going on around ranches where wolves have moved in! Your last statement says nothing about non-confirmed depredation! Even your experts say it is as high as 1 in 6……other agencies say 1 in 20. Keep spewing your fake numbers that have nothing to do with reality & only make the local people see red!
William please let us know when you have trained the coyote and especially the wolf to be civil, respect the fences, property and property lines it crosses in its daily wanderings! Until then, expect the rancher defend himself and his neighbors with bias!
It’s been exposed and proven that welfare ranchers have been known to blame wolves for their livestock dying of natural or other causes. This is how the welfare ranchers try to milk the system and wanting compensation for their cattle dying of natural reasons, but blaming wolves for it.
The caribou were native to Idaho? so are gray wolves. You discriminate against certain species you do not like and that is obvious. The caribou were imported from Canada into Idaho and you seem to have no problem with this, but if it’s gray wolves from Canada, you seem to have a problem with this. You’re an exposed hypocrite. It’s ok to important a species you like from Canada, but not one that you don’t like and you constantly claim you don’t hate wolves, but your comments prove otherwise.
Barry, I find it rather hilarious how you never bring up the fact as to why caribou were endangered in the first place. What’s the matter, can’t help but to blame wolves for everything? The caribou were placed on the endangered species list in the mid 80′s, long before wolf reintroduction. Them being placed on it shows they were in trouble long before wolves were brought back in. The reason why they were in trouble was because of human activity, not wolves. The fact still remains, that caribou were imported from Canada into Idaho just like the gray wolves who are very much native to Idaho. There is nothing I can’t stand more than hypocrites like you Barry.
Reality this. Wolves are native to Wyoming & Wisconsin and many states where they are now extirpated (locally extinct), cattle are not native to North America yet they occupy, in huge numbers, every state in the union. Not one thing can be said to change this pillar of reality. Suppose we can market a global demand for tasty pastured Easter Bunnies. What then? Kill all the foxes, hawks, bobcats, and other bunny predators in the entire country to save the Easter Bunny industry. Sometimes foolishness must be addressed with foolishness to make a point hit home.
I swear, I believe some of you folks would shoot “to kill” your own mother if she inconvenienced your cows. Of course, I’m exaggerating to make a point…. but for God’s sake guys…. the sun does not set on you and your ranch or farm. No matter how much you wish it… it just ain’t so. It’s ok to you to bring in cattle by the millions and displace deer, elk, and other native herbivorous animals by allowing and encouraging your cattle to eat everything in sight all over Wyoming or wherever possible. But a thousand native wolves where tens of thousands used to roam make you cry like babies. This is the reality for the rest of us (the vast majority of citizens), even those that might, like me, eat your delicious beef from time to time… And we pay dear to eat it. As big as those ranches great-great-great grandpappy & grandmammy left you are, the world is much bigger still. The sun does not rise and set on your Ponderosas. There are thousands of other “ways of life” to consider than your own selfish, privileged lives. Some pof started with zero land and will die wil zero land. So what are we? Vermin in your eyes? There are roughly 300,000,000 of us in these United States of America. Be careful, ranchers. You don’t want to “P” off too many of us ya know. We buy your beef, subsidize your ranches and farms, pay for wolf kill, bail you out if a blizzard, flood, drought or other natural dsaster stikes your operations. Pretty cushy conditions if you ask me. But of course, you did not ask me. Not many businesses and especially the majority of the 300,000,000 of us get subsidies when disaster hits, or if we get dog bit on the way to work or get hit by a drunk driver on our daily drive to work on hazardous highways. Most of us have to eat the risks of living and making a living. What makes ranchers so special? I really want to know. Educate me.
I am still waiting for anyone too tell us why they got rid of wolves where they live and now want those of us in the west to make up for it. The fact is anyone insisting on wolves on someone else’s property while their own is exempt is the worst kind of hypocrit, they do not want to deal with the problems themselves so they treat blogs like bathroom walls.
Obviously protected predators do not realize when they are killing another endnagered species. Ravens are protected by the migratory bird laws and yet they are preying severely on sage grouse that enviros want listed.
It is time for the ESA to be tossed, and start using a little common sense instead of fund raising out of taxpayer pockets for enviro groups to contribute nothing but brain washing the suspecptible and harassing food and energy producers.
If you do not like beef don’t eat it, but leave other folks alone.
Yes, facts really bother those whose opinions cannot be supported by facts. While the fact-o-phobes are at it they also advocate for tossing out laws that make them squirm. The ESA has provisions for private landowners that give them the right to kill wolves that are known (not just claimed) to be killing their livestock. Ever heard of the ESA 10(j) or 4(d) sections of the ESA. Maybe should read the ESA and quit crying and lying to the public, telling them that enviros are… and I quote, “brain washing the suspecptible and harassing food and energy producers.” You guys must literally have no conscience. I cannot believe anyone’s mind can be so warped or narrow or selfish that they refuse to see beyond their own noses. There are thousands of laws of on the books that millions of people don’t like, but people live by them every day because they know laws are made to benefit society, not an individual, or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work. I know of know group that whines more over one issue than ranchers on wolves. Ranchers allow their cattle and sheep to roam over thousands of acres of public land (often referring to it as their private land, and then cry if a wolf rarely takes one their animals (for which the public, consumer, or enviro groups compensate them generously) off that public land or public they have leased for about $1.34 an acre or so (whatever that ridiculously low lease fee is these days… it’s cheap compared to the price of land). If ranchers want to graze on public land for so little a fee they should be willing to be accountable to the public. That’s only fair. But then fairness would mean having to allow a paltry few hundred wolves roam free across Wyoming’s vast public lands. Can’t have native wildlife roaming free like cattle across Wyoming, now can we? Sheeesh. It’s absolutely astounding to me. The degree of rabid self-serving selfishness seen on this forum is literally sickening. Wolve are you’re political football while to millions of others wolves are what they are… wildlife that God and nature put here…. not to be used as political footballs, as livng~moving~breathing rifle targets, or as excuses for poor or lazy ranching practices (poor babies, gotta hire an extra hand or two to watch over that ten thousand acres great, great grandpappy left them…. give somebody a job will ya… you choose who?). Noboby feels sorry for folks who cannot make a living on 10s of thousands of inherited or cheaply leased acres. Maybe you believe gggggreat grandpa owed you such a gift, that’s your business but don’t go around as if the rest of us owe you one thin dime. The rest of us pay dear for your products… be happy and here’s a novel idea…. respect your millions of customers’ wishes.
Your cattle and sheep dogs came from wolves. Show wolves a little respect. Talk about folks that are control freaks. Ranching is all about control of everything… land (even public lands), water, animals and those folks in Cheyenne and D.C., folks we call legislators. Ranchers would do well to spend more time out watching their cattle and sheep (like their ggggreat grandpas did) and less time in the halls of congress, at both state and federal levels.
Irremotus and occidentalis ranges overlapped. irremotus’s range included Alberta Canada so one could make the argument that irremotus was a canadian wolf since its range included into Canada, and occidentalis’s ranged included the northern rockies. Irremotus was subscribed as “A light-colored subspecies of medium to rather large size”.With regards to surplus killing, all wolves are known to do this from time to time. This has nothing to do with canadian wolves or gray wolves from other places. It’s something that all gray wolves have been known to do.
GEIST: There’s no question about that that this is part and parcel of the nature of wolves. When they have the opportunity to kill in excess, just simply kill and leave, kill and leave, and go on killing, they will do so. This has nothing to do with Yellowstone wolves, Russian wolves — this is a universal characteristic of wolves, period. By the way, grizzly bears will do the same thing.
Crunch crunch crunch, urp.
Popcorn fodder galore here.
Gopher, you may think science operates in a cultural vacuum, but it doesn’t. Science is a social field, although there are many who philosophically can’t stand the idea.
The truth remains, however, that science gets respect from the lay public because science applied has improved the human condition.
Ken,
You didn’t mention one of the main factors: Pack cohesiveness including difference in sizes of the packs between the two subspecies, which is one of the main traits that make occidentalius an unsuitable fit for our tiny fragile ecosystems in these individual states.
Also why was there all the lies and fraud of the EIS and FEIS about the existence of reproducing indigenous pre-introductory wolves pre-introduction carried out by all the federal and state agencies in the EIS phase, if a “wolf” is a wolf.
You guys are WELL aware we had wolves, and enough (only two breeding pairs had to be located), and why this was all covered up in the first place?
So can you tell me why these agencies, including Ed Bangs tried so hard to destroy the indigenous populations of wolves? Why did IDFG not report that they had not processed this information or made it public?
I’m not talking about one person that submitted 18 individual wolves to the IDFG to be entered in their data base. There were others that made reports that weren’t processed.
I would suggest reading: Wolves of Central Idaho, if you read that detailed study, there were plenty of pre-introductory wolves to “study.” Not to mention the Yellowpine wolves, that caused the USFS to try and close a road in that area.
So let’s start there. Why?
Not to mention this is where it all begins with the fraud. Now we have Echinoccous granulosus in the state of Idaho. USFWS sure doesn’t want to touch that fact with a 10 foot pole. They have handed all their disease information about the wolves back to the state.
Ken,
Could this just be, why we have Echinoccocus granulosus now in Idaho? We’re talking about saturation levels two counties, and statewide 63%, back in 2005. Another little FACT that was covered up by our IDFG, and certainly the USFWS. Heck the USFWS won’t even discuss the Hydatid tapeworm diseases, they handed their database over to IDFG.
Oh.. but were not suppose to talk about “inconvenient buried facts” too uncomfortable. Sorry I forgot.
Hi Jeff E. Be happy to introduce you to the locals in Potlatch, after they read your comments. We’ll buy you a coffee, how about that?
I’m sure you’ll fit right in.
Yeah, I’m well aware you had gray wolves in idaho before wolf reintroduction just like I’m well aware that there were gray wolves in Montana in the 80s that came down on their own naturally from Canada.
The ranges of irremotus and occidentalis which are subspecies of gray wolf overlapped. The wolves of north america said that irremotus’s range INCLUDED ALBERTA CANADA. Occidentalis’s range included into the northern rockies. Irremotus according to the wolves of north america was “”A light-colored subspecies of medium to rather large size.” So the claim that irremotus was a lot smaller than occidentalis is a lie and incorrect. And to say that occidentalis is not native to Idaho is a joke when its range included Idaho which means it WAS IN IDAHO way before wolves were ever reintroduced into central Idaho.
It was never covered up Chandie. It wasn’t discussed because it’s not considered dangerous. Disease is a part of nature and has always been. it was being brought up by people like you, then that’s when Idaho fish and game decided to come out and give the facts about it to people like you. Granulosis exists wherever wolves are. Wisconsin. Minnesota, Michigan have had wolves for years and granulosis exists in all of those places and guess what sweetie, not one person has ever been infected.
http://www.phd1.idaho.gov/clinical/diseaseinvestigation/wolves.cfm
look up what Robert Rausch and William Foreyt has to say about granulosis. You might just learn the truth.
You have a better chance of getting shot by a hunter than catching a tapeworm from a wolf. Look at how many people are killed and hurt by hunters and compare those with those who are infected with granulosis.
Ken,
You’re incorrect about the densities of wolves in Idaho, especially in my area of Northern Idaho. We historically never had wolves in Latah County, let alone other neighboring counties like Whitman. I can’t find any bounty records for our counties. I have four branches of pioneer relatives that settled in the 19th century, pre-statehood on my mother’s side alone, not one relative mentioned wolves. They mentioned bears, and my great grandparents only mentioned mountain lions were a concern out side of Viola, Idaho, as witnessed by them and their great grandparents, my great, great, great grandparents.
Now cross that over to the Nelsons, fourth generation and not one word about wolves from any of my Swedish pioneer relatives about wolves in Latah County, or the Lynds.
What we are looking at is not “natural” it is man-made government “state” and “federal” wildlife disaster.
I also would suggest reading the: Clearwater Story, Lewis and Clark never saw wolves passing from west, or back east across the Lolo Pass.
Oh, should we mention Echionoccocus granulosus again? If we had all these occidentalius migrating south from Canada, which none of us witnessed this massive migration, until Bangs & Co. started helicoptering and trucking them south from Central Idaho up to our area, why do we have a historical epidemic, which is what it’s going to be right now. We have hydatid levels that are way higher than Australia. Should I post the Salmon, Idaho tapes?
This whole non-essential experiment has been based on scientific fraud. Should I post Dr. Charles Kay’s video in Salmon, Idaho too?
By Ken, 8-15-11
You have a better chance of getting shot by a hunter than catching a tapeworm from a wolf. Look at how many people are killed and hurt by hunters and compare those with those who are infected with granulosis.
Thank you. I’ll take record of your indepth thoughtful reply. County Commissioners are going to love this.
That’s not the point Ken. The disease is going to cost millions to try and control. It is unacceptable what these agencies, biologists, and NGO’s have done to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and the people, especially the rural communities.
That is just one major negative impact, a health crisis and a wildlife crisis for our ungulates, as well as our rural dogs and livestock.
So you are comfortable with the wolf introduction, introducing a non-native tapeworm into Idaho. Totally acceptable to our watersheds?
You’ve never had wolves? You probably did but you didn’t see them. They are very elusive. Just because you didn’t see something, does not mean it’s not there. montana’s wolf population was not brought in by helicopter. Wolves were brought in by helicopter in ys and central Idaho, but this makes very little difference as wolves were well on their way into the northern rockies by natural migration. In a roundtable discussion that Dr. Val Geist was involved in on wolves, he said that wolves were well on their way down from Canada into the northern rockies and they were “canadian” wolves documented south of Yellowstone before wolf reintroduction. Just because there are no bounty records or just because your relatives did not see wolves does not mean they weren’t there. I will say it again sweetie, granulosis has been in MI, WI, AND MN for years and years and NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN INFECTED WITH THE DISEASE. Explain that to me, if you can. There are thousands of wolves in ak and Canada and very few people have ever been infected with granulosis and died from it.
It’s not a non native tapeworm. As I told you already, granulosis is found in all places where they are wolves. You can clame it was never found in Idaho, but the fact is it was probably there, but it was never found. Listen to me as I’m going to say this one last time and maybe you will listen or maybe not, granulosis has been in states like wi, mn, and mi, just to name 3 wolf states for years. Each of these states have a good sized wolf population. Not one HUMAN BEING has been infected with the tapeworm in these people. Very few people have been infected with this tapeworm in Alaska and Canada which there is 70,000 plus wolves. Disease is a natural and unfortunate part of the environment. You will never get rid of disease. it’s here to stay in the environment whether we want it there or not. Idaho is not a special state. It’s no different than any other state that has wolves. Disease has always been a natural part of Idaho’s wilderness and always will.
There are many more positives than negatives when it comes to wolf reintoduction. Some people aren’t going to like that they are back.
Naw….
While there might have been something positive possible from wolf introduction, that was contingent upon active management once the population goal was met. Didn’t happen, so now there’s a “trophic cascade” equivalent to placing a team of poachers in the midst of game and livestock herds.
Getting back to the topic, the war isn’t about wolves, it’s about self determination in a free society. The people of Wyoming, like the other affected states, have undeniable rights. Such a shame that Wyoming was the only polity to have the guts to stand for those rights and provoke the needed confrontation.
Nope Ken, didn’t have wolves until they dumped them on us on our road, on my property and around my town.
Sources: Wolves of North America Goldman & Young.
Wolves of Central Idaho, Kaminski & Hansen
Clearwater Story
Yellowstone Wolves, Cat Urbigkit
Salmon, Idaho Dr. Kay Presentation
Salmon, Idaho Dr. Clay Defletson
Today is Ours, Pioneer Family, Elsie Nelson
Didn’t use the Outdoorsman this time, but you’re wrong George Dovel is extremely well researched and thorough with his research.
Jeffery when are you going to drink coffee with me?
Ken it is a non-native tapeworm. Prove it was here before. Dr. Delaine Kritsky already covered this.
I cannot prove anything, but what is PROVEN Chandie is that this tapeworm is found in all states where there are wolves. As I said few times before, it has always been in states like wi, mi, mn, etc. Not one person has been infected or died from the tapeworm the wolf carries in these 3 states. If it’;s found in these wolf states and other places where wolves inhabit like Canada and Alaska, why would one think it was never in Idaho? That just makes no sense what so ever. and as I already said from before, just because it isn’t found, does not mean it’s not there. they weren’t many wolves in Idaho before wolf reintroduction, so that might be the answer to why this tapeworm was not found, but make no mistake about it,. this tapeworm is very much NATIVE to all places that have a good size wolf population. Idaho is no different than states like WI, MI, mn, etc which have had this tapeworm for decades. No human has been infected or died from this tapeworm in those 3 states. I don’t know how many people have gotten the tapeworm in ak or canada, but what I do know is that VERY FEW PEOPLE become infected with it and die from it. You clearly make this tapeworm issue a lot bigger than what it really is. if this tapeworm was so deadly to humans, you’d have hundreds of people getting infected from it and dying from it and you know this is not the case. This is nothing more than a silver bullet being used to get rid of the wolves in your state.
see chandie this is what i mean. e.c.granulosus is the northern bio-type. North of a line, in Idaho, of about McCall.
Dr. Delaine Kritsky looked for it, in the 70′s, in southeast Idaho.
hmmmm.
Also I am glad you brought up Goldman and Young’s “Wolves of North America”.
If you would, please, find what Goldman decided,all on his own, the ranges of the different subspecies of wolf, which he decided thereof all on his own, and tell me what is the northern extent of what Goldman decided all on his own, was c.l. irremotus.
As for coffee, i was just in Potlatch recently. Where were you?
Dr. kritsky DID NOT test any wolves for the tapeworm. He based his conclusion that the tapeworm wasn’t in Idaho on a few coyotes he tested. There were thousands of coyotes in idaho about the time he tested them for the tapeworm. he should have tested wolves, not coyotes. You cannot test a few coyotes and find that they didn’t carry the tapeworm and then assume that all coyotes in the state didn’t carry the tapeworm. Coyotes I believe carry a different type of tapeworm than wolves. Kritsky’s findings are flawed. He never tested wolves in Idaho. One thing that Kritsky cannot deny is that in states where they have been wolf populations for years and years like mn, mi, wi, that this tapeworm exists and has existed for decades. I have no doubt that if he tested the wolves that were in Idaho when he tested the coyotes, he would have found the tapeworm. This tapeworm is native to all places where there are good size wolf populations. Not surprisingly. kritsky being the biased anti-wolfer that he is has said that the only way of getting rid of the tapeworm in Idaho by killing all of the wolves. Other disease experts have said you cannot get rid of the tapeworm by killing all of the wolves. The tapeworm is in Idaho and is there to stay. The elk and other animals now carry it.
Chandie, the “native” wolf aka irremotus range included Alberta Canada. Since irremotus was able to travel up on up to Canada on its own, why wouldn’t occidentalis be able to travel all the way down to Canada on their own? Why does the wolves of north america 1937 says that irremotus was a medium size to RATHER LARGE WOLF? I thought irremotus weighed only 60 pounds according to you? Truth be known. occidentalis only weighed 10-20 more pounds than irremotus. You said Idaho had native wolves aka irremotus, but irremotus would disperse back and forth from Idaho into Canada and back again and occidentalis did the same thing, so why would you think occidentalis was a non native wolf when its range included Idaho? The pack size is because of the prey they hunt. A pair of wolves would have a harder time taking down an elk or moose than say a pack of 5-10 wolves or even more.
“but the range of the subspecies irremotus extends northward along the backbone of the continent to undetermined limits, probably meeting that of C.l. occidentalis.”
“Distribution–Northern Rocky Mountain region, and high adjoining plains, from southwestern Wyoming north through western Montana and eastern Idaho at least to Lethbridge, Alberta.”
From the wolves of north america 1937
So, the wolves of north america CLEARLY SHOWS that irremotus range included Alberta Canada and likewise, occidentalis’s range included the northern rockies, so how on earth does someone make the argument that occidentalis was never in Idaho when the wolves of north america shows that their range included the northern rockies?
I got a headache we’ll beat this dead horse tomorrow, but you guys are wrong, wrong, wrong. And is this Idaho Ken or California Ken?
Ken,
Actually the map of Irremotus range in Goldman’s book shows the northern extent quite a bit north of Lethbridge. I believe he used the Athabasca river as the faux boundary.
Chandie, explain to me how I’m wrong? seems like you can’t stand that you are the one that is wrong. dr. Kritsky only tested coyotes according to you and not wolves. The other information I provided to you comes from the wolves of north america 1937.
Final comment: Steven Fain, scientist conducting the DNA work on the Teton Wolf, “the bigfoot” shot in 1992, wrote that he had completed analysis of the mtDNA of the Teton wolf and seven Montana wolves, and concluded, “The genetic analysis indicate that the evidence animal did not originate from the Glacier National Park, Montana wolf pack.
Something to think about for tonight.
Ken you’re are wrong because we had wolves pre-introduction and ESA rules in the EIS were illegal to introduce wolves on top of a population of wolves.
Hence the first law that was broken, among all the others. You just can’t stand it that this program was based on fraudulent science from day 1.
Chandie, the wolves of north american 1937 says that irremotus’s ranged included CANADA. So, if irremotus was able to travel up to Canada on its own from Idaho, why wouldn’t occidentalis be able to do the same? meaning travel from Canada into Idaho on its own? Can you please explain that to me as you seem to never think you’re wrong. Wolves today are migrating on their own from Canada (BC) into states like Oregon and Washington, so why wouldn’t occidentalis be able to migrate to Idaho on its own? All wolves are capable of travelling and dispersing very long distances. I really don’t get why you refuse to accept that wolves from Canada are non native and aren’t able to naturally migrate into Idaho.
wolves already were naturally migrating from Canada into Montana. How is it illegal to reintroduce wolves when they were already repopulationg on their own via natural migration into the northern rockies? What you can’t stand is wolves being reintroduced Chandie into your state.
“In addition, researchers note that although the gray wolf (canis lupus) was once divided into many subspecies, so many subspecies have become extinct that most scientists no longer differentiate between subspecies.264 Scientists now typically classify wolves as belonging to one of two species: the gray wolf (canis lupus) or the red wolf (canis rufus).265
With regard to the assertion that “Canadian” gray wolves are neither threatened nor endangered and therefore are not appropriate for use as a reintroduced population, the ESA itself speaks to this charge.266 It is a unique feature of the ESA that it applies state by state.267 “Hence the abundance of wolves in Alaska, Canada, or Russia has no legal bearing on the question of their endangeredness in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.”268 Thus, that gray wolves are abundant in Canada has no bearing on their status in the individual United States, and they are therefore acceptable for use as a reintroduced population.269
[*PG455] Accordingly, the defendants’ use of Canadian gray wolves for the reintroduction program did not violate section 10(j) of the ESA.270 The conclusions of the Wyoming district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit should be upheld if this issue is appealed to the Supreme Court.”
No laws were broken Chandie. That is only something in your head that you believe. People like you will always try to discredit wolf reintroduction just because you didn’t want wolves back roaming around in your state.
Chandie,
there was wolves in Idaho, just not a viable, breeding population. I know that there is all the “rumor” of all these documented wolves but where is the proof. Just post it. Put it to rest once and for all. If it is a fact it is a fact period.
Also the wolves that were in Idaho were not just some “special” wolves unlike any other in the world. They would have multiplied like any other wolves in the world, or any other species for that matter. Why did they not.??? Please educate me.
Oh heck let’s beat this horse to death. I’ll get out my books again, just a sec, got to dust them off the the 1,000th time.
Ken you answer my question, why do you think it was fine to violate the ESA act, and introduce this northern variety on top of a population of indigenous wolves in Central Idaho?
Why do you think the agencies refused to process reported sightings, even from IDFG employees, outfitters, trappers, ranchers, etc.
Why do you think the USFWS hired two inexperienced girls right out of college to lead the Native wolf investigation in 1993-1994, hand picked by Ed Bangs?
hmmmm?
I really don’t get why you refuse to accept that wolves from Canada are native and are able to naturally migrate into Idaho.
I suppose no matter how much correct information you are given Chandie, you will dismiss it and discredit it as you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the real truth is. No laws were broken and reintroducing wolves was very much LEGAL.
“With regard to the assertion that “Canadian” gray wolves are neither threatened nor endangered and therefore are not appropriate for use as a reintroduced population, the ESA itself speaks to this charge.266 It is a unique feature of the ESA that it applies state by state.267 “Hence the abundance of wolves in Alaska, Canada, or Russia has no legal bearing on the question of their endangeredness in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.”268 Thus, that gray wolves are abundant in Canada has no bearing on their status in the individual United States, and they are therefore acceptable for use as a reintroduced population.269
[*PG455] Accordingly, the defendants’ use of Canadian gray wolves for the reintroduction program did not violate section 10(j) of the ESA.270 The conclusions of the Wyoming district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit should be upheld if this issue is appealed to the Supreme Court.”
You guys are giving me a headache. No laws broken??? Wow!
The esa act was not violated sweetie. Here ya go again.
“With regard to the assertion that “Canadian” gray wolves are neither threatened nor endangered and therefore are not appropriate for use as a reintroduced population, the ESA itself speaks to this charge.266 It is a unique feature of the ESA that it applies state by state.267 “Hence the abundance of wolves in Alaska, Canada, or Russia has no legal bearing on the question of their endangeredness in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.”268 Thus, that gray wolves are abundant in Canada has no bearing on their status in the individual United States, and they are therefore acceptable for use as a reintroduced population.269
[*PG455] Accordingly, the defendants’ use of Canadian gray wolves for the reintroduction program did not violate section 10(j) of the ESA.270 The conclusions of the Wyoming district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit should be upheld if this issue is appealed to the Supreme Court.”
I think it’s possible that a few irremotus remained. There is no way to tell the difference between irremotus and occidentalis. You would not tell the difference between them if they were both put right in front of you. The esa applies to SPECIES, NOT REALLY SUBSPECIES.
Read what I posted Chandie. It was NOT ILLEGAL to reintroduce gray wolves from Canada into Idaho and yellowstone. This is the last time I’m going to post this.
“With regard to the assertion that “Canadian” gray wolves are neither threatened nor endangered and therefore are not appropriate for use as a reintroduced population, the ESA itself speaks to this charge.266 It is a unique feature of the ESA that it applies state by state.267 “Hence the abundance of wolves in Alaska, Canada, or Russia has no legal bearing on the question of their endangeredness in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.”268 Thus, that gray wolves are abundant in Canada has no bearing on their status in the individual United States, and they are therefore acceptable for use as a reintroduced population.269
Chandie,
Not at my finger tips. who is the author?
By the way did you know that the total P&R;funds, authorized by congress, spent on wolf re-introduction amounted to about 200,000 dollars? Can easily be found with a bit of research.
Jim Beers says that the Pittman Robertson funds were a minimum of $65 million dollars, at the beginning of his auditing investigation. He was there, and was asked to investigate the monies, before he was taken off the job. His account is well researched, and he went in front of Congress.
Secondly: Wolves of Central Idaho, written by Tim Kaminski and Jerome Hansen 1984. This is the blueprint for locating wolves, and the wolves subspecies referred to as Canis lupus irremotus. It is divided up into every region they were going to introduce them in Idaho.
Most people don’t have this copy because you can’t find it anymore. My copy is loaned out to a legislature right now.
The 10(j) was written to specifically to cover their ***es to bring in an animal that could damage or kill an native species. If you read the 10 (j) that is specifically what it is for, to keep those who are doing all of these manipulations of wildlife from lawsuits.
Ken if wolves from Canada are native to Wyoming and Idaho are people from Canada also natives of Idaho and Wyoming? If not why not?
The whole thing is part of a push to eliminate the food and energy producers. There are a million excuses for doing it, but no real jsutification.
Wolves of Central Idaho was a study done in 1984 to determine areas in Idaho suitable for wolf habitat and recovery areas, and what industries would effect those recovery areas: timber, grazing, mining, even outfitting, and multi-use.
They weren’t considering introduction exclusively in this study but a natural recovery of existing remnant populations of wolves.
The highest amount of sightings were in Central Idaho, which correspond with reports you get from the regional local people from those areas. Also in Wolves of North America, Central Idaho was the area that was historically had the highest density of wolf populations in Idaho of the indigenous wolf, irremotus. The map doesn’t show a southern migration coming out of Canada of populations of wolves in Northern Idaho.
Ken, Let’s write out the entire morpholgical differences of Canis lupus irremotus and Canis lupus occidentalius, out of Wolves of North America.
Young and Goldman’s, The Wolves of North America maintained that the subspecies of wolf native to the Yellowstone region was Canis lupus irremotus, a light colored subspecies of medium to rather large size, with skull having a narrow but flattened frontal region.” In the same work, Canis lupus occidentalis, the subspecies of wolf introduced into Yellowstone and Central Idaho, is described as, “the LARGEST of the North American wolves, with a LARGE and MASSIVE SKULL.”
Young and Goldman noted that the irremotus differed from occidentalis in its “decidedly smaller size.”
Wolf Skulls-In addition after examining hundreds of wolf skulls, they noted that the cranial abnormalities in the larger number of specimens were few, but did find an abnormality that was specifically associated with the subspecies irremotus.
Nowak proposed that wolves in North America belong to only five subspecies. As stated earlier, he placed C.l. irremotus among a southern group of wolves names C.l. nubilus while C.l. occidentalis was retained as another, more northerly group.
Nowak classifications of the Yellowstone wolf was not contested by other taxonomists, and was supported by studies of other researchers, all of which suggest that a major systematic north-south division of wolf subspecies existed along the Canada-US border in western North America.
Nowak sent a letter commenting on the DEIS concerning the wolf introduction, and very clearly pointed out to FWS that the wolves native to Yellowstone were “substantially different” from the Canadian wolves, that there is a “subspecific distinction” between the two, and that the DEIS improperly suggested otherwise.
FWS knew that the wolves had survived in the Yellowstone region. FWS also knew there was a pronounced subspecific difference between the native wolf, C.l. irremotus, and the released northern wolves, C.l. occidentalis.
It should be of no surprise that in wolf killed by a vehicle north of the park in 1988, according to Nowak, “looks more like a member of this original US population. Its measurements fall mostly within the range shown by the subspecies Cl.l. irremotus of the northern Rockies.”
Chandie, is this what you are referring too?
That, “Kaminski and Hansen compiled 600 unconfirmed reports of wolves in Idaho between 1973 and 1983. Of these 238 were classified as probable.
Of these they estimated there might be between 17 and 40 wolves.
After a two year effort to gather physical evidence of wolves in the state, they found evidence of only 1 to 4 wolves. After analyzing all the data they concluded that no more than 15 wolves were present in central Idaho from 1974 to 1984.”
Take these observations coordinate them with on the ground eye-witness observations, including my own prior to introduction and after, and what I notice, as well as historically compiling information through research and obtaining information from credible people that live in Northern Idaho, is that there was no noticeable impact of wolf activity on our ungulates, livestock, including (effecting their everyday lives until the introduction took place). This is after 50 years wolves were presumed eradicated.
They will also tell you that they noticed wolves in areas that are consistent with Wolves of Central Idaho, and other pre-introductory reports given orally, as well as some hand-written accounts, that the wolves that were observed prior to introduction, exhibited different cohesive pack behavior. Never were packs found, like after Canadian wolves were introduced in sizes of 10-20, including packs of even up to 35 mentioned by a Salish Indian in Montana, who even admitted these are different wolves.
The eye witness accounts don’t match up with your “text book” references of what is happening on the ground. That is why you think the people of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are stubborn because what they are experiencing in their life-times, and their father’s life times, and history passed down through generations isn’t matching up with the government USFWS and State Agency “politically manipulated research and models.”
Then when you add stolen Pittman Robertson Funds, No 3-177 Forms filled out, purging of IDFG data base information of pre-introductory wolves, “data” not processed by other reports made to IDFG, and read the Charles Lobdell Letters, and after hearing all the misconceptions and distorted lies who are you going to believe. Your own eyes, relatives, neighbors, and local people, or a bunch of government biologists out of CA working for NASA?
We can debate subspecies all you want Chandie. There was nothing illegal about reintroducing wolves. The “native wolf population was gone or nearly gone by the time of wolf reintroduction. This is what Ron Nowak told me. Ron Nowak also told me that they have no evidence that the “native” wolves were killed off by the reintroduced ones. This is a common myth people like you believe. That is that the reintroduced wolves killed off the “native” ones. Ron Nowak told me that occidentalis was wiped out over much of its range and subsequently recovered to some extent and expanded southward to occupy part of the original range of nubilus which also includes irremotus. he goes to say the expansion of occidentalis reached west central Montana by the time of wolf reintroduction and probably would have continued on its own to the yellowstone region. He also told me he doubts there is much difference in aggressiveness between irremotus and occidentalis.These are Nowak’s exact words. Nowak also told me he’s not aware of any great behavior differences between irremotus and occidentalis. The last thing Nowak told me is that occidentalis was already moving in on its own and would have reached yellowstone before long and that occidentalis and irremotus ranges merged.
Where are you getting these Nowak references which contradict everything I’ve read in Cat Urbigkit’s Book, which includes the trial in detail?
One more important detail that has to be mentioned is that those wolves people claimed they saw in Idaho way before wolf reintroduction have never provided any proof what so ever that proves that those wolves seen were irremotus. Them wolves seen could have easily been occidentalis. It was only a matter of time before wolves started repopulationg Idaho again. Nautral migration is something that takes time. It doesn’t happen overnight. I wonder what Chandie is going to say now that she knows that Ron Nowak believes that “native” wolves were gone or nearly gone by the time of reintroduction. Chandie, Nowak also said that they have no evidence that the “native” wolves were killed off by the reintroduced ones and the ones that migrated naturally. What do you have to say about this?
The “native wolf population was gone or nearly gone by the time of wolf reintroduction.-Ron Nowak
The possible reason why there weren’t many wolves coming over from Canada into the northern rockies naturally is because of wolves being hunted in Canada. In the 1980s, wolves started naturally migrating into the northern rockies on their own due to tighter canadian regulations on wolf hunting.
Chandie, the thing is the misconceptions and the distorted lies comes from people like you. I want you to respond to the things that Ron Nowak told me.
Chandie, answer me this question. Those wolves seen in Idaho before wolf reintroduction, you claim and others like you that they were irremotus which according to Ron Nowak were gone or basically gone by the time of wolf reintroduction. As I said in a few comments back, he told me that they have no evidence of the reintroduced wolves killing off the supposed “native” ones. The question is, has it ever been proven for 100% certain that those wolves that were seen in Idaho prior to wolves being reintroduced and naturally migrating on their own were infact irremotus or did people just believe and assume they were? I think 9 out of 10 people would not be able to tell the difference between occidentalis and irremotus.
Yeah Jeff. you sometimes hear people like Chandie say that we loved our native smaller timberwolves. “They didn’t cause any problems.” Yeah, that’s because they were shooting them. Chandie doesn’t care about irremotus and never did. She’s just angry that wolves were brought back into her state.
Prove it Jeff, names, and locations ? Did they prove it to you ? What makes you think they were credible, sounds like another ” I saw a 200″ buck up on Blizzard Mountain, (Sawtooth Wilderness), yeah right, truth is they weren’t there. I’ve lived here for the majority of my life, been in the hunting circles through all of that, and never once heard anyone discussing shooting the few wolves some of us occasionally witnessed here, and while I sighted a few during my hunting excursions,<(this is when real outdoorsmen leave the trail head on the hurricane deck and ride in deep, 25-35 miles, and stay for a month) the thought to dump them never crossed my mind. The landscape should be littered with dead wolves then, since “Re”-introduction the opportunity to shoot several has definitely been available, another reason to discard your BS comment.
Ken,
These are passages taken out of the forward of Cat’s book.
Foreward By Ronald M. Nowak pg vii
Cat’s book may provide the most lucid and revealing account available of the consequences of taxonomy on conservation. She shows how a practice, usually restricted to museums, laboratories, and technical journals, came to dominate the fate of the western wolves. But in a sense, she continues a longstanding debate. For many decades taxonomy has had a key role in our approach to wolves, perhaps more than any other animal.
Most zoologists recxognize only two full species of living wolves, the gray Canis lupus and the red Canis rufus. The gray wolf is by far the more wide-ranging of the two; found almost throughout all of North America and Eurasia it sometimes has been divided into dozens of subspecies or geographic races. However, my own taxonomic assessment of North American wolves, based namely on cranial morphometrics, distinguished only five subspecies of the gray wolf, together with the separate red wolf in the southeastern part of the continent. All six kinds kindled the taxonomic battles that have engulfed wolves in recent years.
The original Yellowstone wolf population, sometimes designated Canis lupus irremotus, is or was part of a wide-ranging subspecies, which I referred to as Canis lupus nubilus, of mid-sized wolves throughout much of the western and central parts of North America.
A key argument in Cat’s book is that the subspecies is distinct from C.l. occidenalis, the subspecies that is round to the north in western Canada and most of Alaska. C.l. nublius presumably also is represented by the population in Minnesota and on Isle Royale. There is is the subject of further taxonomic issues, some zoologists claiming it is actually part of another species allied with the red wolf and/or has been intensively hybridized with coyotes.
I also assigned the population of the southeast Alaskan panhandle to nubilus. When conservation groups petitioned to have that population protected through the ESA, FWS tried to AVOID the listing by citing MY WORK as EVIDENCE that it was not a distinctive subspecies. In so doing, FWS ignored the Act’s requirement that the distinct population segments, as well as subspecies, must be listed.
Other three North American subspecies of gray wolf I recognized are C.l. lycaon and C.l. baileyi, and C.l. arctos. Canis lupus lycaon is the small timber wolf of southeastern Ontario and southern Quebec.
The grand plan to move wolves from Canada–from another subspecies–to Yellowstone in the 1990′s was not a TRUE REINTRODUCTION but the INTRODUCTION of a non-native and aggressive life form that would genetically swamp the surviving native wolves.
Introduction, as opposed to reintroduction, can be, and usually are, devastating to natural ecosystems. Alien house cats, foxes, and mongooses have destroyed or endangered entire species of native birds and small mammals in Australia and goats in Eurasia have wiped out the vegetative cover and forage needed by the indigenous wildlife. Red foxes brought from Europe have replaced or crossed with original subspecies throughout the conterminous U.S.
The proposed introduction of gray wolves from Canada into the Yellowstone area was a scheme involving an unusual alliance. Hard line conservation groups pushed for wolves, lots of wolves, in Yellowstone and adjacent country as QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE and at any COST.
Bureaucrats went along with this pressure. Cat subtly implies, not because they cared about restoring wolves or what kind of wolves they would be. They only wanted to take advantage of a regulatory quirk that would allow an introduced wolf population to be declared, “experimental” and thus be free from the usual protections offered by an official endangered classification.
What may seem to the advantage of a particular animal population at a particular time may not be in keeping with the original intent of the ESA, which places foremost priority on long-term maintenance of natural ecosystems. Cat has shown us a scenario in which the possibly well-meaning were misled.
These are passages taken out of the forward by Ronald M. Nowak.
“The grand plan to move wolves from Canada–from another subspecies–to Yellowstone in the 1990′s was not a TRUE REINTRODUCTION but the INTRODUCTION of a non-native and aggressive life form that would genetically swamp the surviving native wolves. ”
This is not what Ron Nowak told me. He said he doubts there is much difference in aggressiveness between irremotus and occidentalis. He also says it is hard to say if the reintroduced wolves are non native. He clearly says that “native” wolves were gone or nearly gone by the of reintroduction and that the reintroduced wolves were well on their way down here in the northern rockies. There is also no evidence according to Nowak that suggests that the reintroduced wolves killed the “native” ones.
By JEFF E, 8-15-11
Chandie,
just answer the question. a simple yes or no will do
How come you dance around everyone of my questions? Let’s see for example why would Ed Bangs USFWS, and cooperation of the state agencies refuse to confirm documented and mapped wolves in Central Idaho pre-introduction, if they were going to follow the rules of the ESA?
I tried to post the link to that article written by the trapper, and New West wouldn’t accept it, claimed it was spam.
google: Differences of Varieties of Wolves, BBB. Since I conveniently can’t leave the link, and answer if you think the purging of this “data” was scientific, legal, moral, correct, etc?
Ken, Can you prove there wasn’t irremotus? It would of been easier if this information wasn’t destroyed, but it was.
Oh, and I hated our resident pre-introductory wolves. Right. I never even knew they existed until the late 1980′s when I heard them howling on a camping trip in the Northfork of the Clearwater. Yes there was a pack of them howling. My dad said, those are wolves. I never heard them before in my life, and I actually was excited. I never grew up in “wolf country” I was raised four and five generations from four branches on my mother’s side alone in Palouse Country, where there is no record of wolves. My family moved here pre-statehood, and they had to clear the land. They even had Palouse bands of Indians digging camus roots on our farm. If there were wolves I would of heard or read about it in the local history books, and by the hundreds of people I know and am related too here.
Not one person I speak to mentions wolves around here, except in the mountains up by Kelly Creek, Weitas Creek, and many of these people are loggers or outfitters that spend their daily lives in the woods.
I don’t agree with the introduction, because it was based on fraud and lies. That’s why it will always be controversial and a failure, and the people that live here are not experiencing the success story you out-of-state residents, NGO’s, government biologists are apparently enjoying.
actually some of the first re-introduced wolves met up with some of the dispersers that had already arrived in Bear vally and formed the first (?) viable pack in Idaho post reintroduction
Chandie,
I don’t even know how to dance. We were having a conversation and you brought up Kaminski so I quoted a synopsis of what he did, and asked if that is what you meant. No reply from you. Just come back with a bunch of different related subjects but no reply. By the way I would assume that the 600 unconfirmed reports would originate from many sources including the outfitters you bring up.
If you want to have a conversation lets do it but maybe get thru one issue at a time instead of trying to lump them all togeather at one shot.
Ron’s own taxonomic studies suggests that the original wolves of the yellowstone region can be called nubilus. Nubilus also called the great plains wolf had an historic range throughout the united states and the southern regions of Canada. This is the subspecies of wolf that you find in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They can weigh anywhere from 60 to 110 pounds. Occidentalis the reintroduced wolf from Alberta Canada weigh in at an average of 110 pounds for males and 90 pounds average for females.
Chandie, I don’t believe you cared about irremotus one bit. As jeff e stated, the locals were killing irremotus whenever they saw them. Irremotus never caused any problems because the locals were killing them. it is not right to assume or claim something without any solid proof or evidence. To suggest or claim that the wolves seen in Idaho prior to wolf reintroduction were irremotus is not based on any real solid evidence. I can look at a wolf and claim it’s this subspecies or that subspecies, but until dna testing and stuff like that is done on it, I am just stating my own opinion/assumption on what the subspecies might really be.
Barry, if you have proof that Ed Bangs broke the law, why aren’t you doing anything about it? Why isn’t Ed Bangs in jail?
Science has not died. I agree that the state of science in the past few decades has become quite ill however. Science is ill because of radicals who are ignorant about science. Radicals see no degrees. They only see off and on, yes and no, black and white, and good and evil. Scientists are able to see degrees, nuance, gray, and have no time for good or evil in their work. Facts are what they are. Scientists can accept scientific facts even if they confound their own personal biases. I know science is not dead… as some radicals would have it.
By Ken, 8-15-11
Chandie, I don’t believe you cared about irremotus one bit.
Truth is Ken Cullings, is I don’t believe you CARE about irremotus. That is a substantiated fact, since you aren’t even upset or concerned over the efforts that were made to purge the existence of this truly endangered subspecies.
I think that is a “shame,” and is also a reason we can’t entrust the ESA act anymore, since this introduction was carried out so irresponsibly.
Probably doesn’t cut it Barry? Well dr. kritsky’s opinion that it wasn’t in Idaho because he didn’t find it in the few coyotes he tested doesn’t cut it either. Why didn Dr. Kritsky test wolves in Idaho at that time? Since wolves are more likely to carry granulosis than coyotes, it would have made more sense for him to test wolves, but he didn’t. I wonder why that is. There was like a few wolves in idaho at that time. Why didn’t he test them? I can’t prove it was or it wasn’t in Idaho, but here is what is proven, the tapeworm has been in MN, MI, WI, AK, and Canada for decades and decades. All of these places have good size wolf populations and all of these places have been documented with the tapeworm being there. Not one person has been infected or died from the tapeworm in MI, MN, AND WI. There is nothing special about Idaho. If the tapeworm has existed for decades in all of the other states in the us where there are wolves and have been wolves in those states for years and years, why would one assume that its not possible for the tapeworm to be in Idaho? There is no evidence what so ever that suggests or proves that the tapeworm was never in Idaho. This tapeworm is very much native. Just because Kritsky tested a few coyotes and didn’t find the tapeworm in them does not mean it didn’t exist at all in Idaho. Why this guy didn’t test wolves is beyond me. What is proven is that this tapeworm exists in ak, canada, mn, mi, mt, wa, wi, etc. Where there are wolves, this tapeworm will be. diseases and tapeworms although frightening to some and scary are a natural part of the environment and will always be. I cannot prove it was in Idaho,but on the flipside of that. kritsky did not prove it wasn’t in Idaho. He tested a few coyotes and foxes I believe and that’s it. You don’t test a few animals and say well these animals I tested didn’t carry the tapeworm, so that must be it’s not here in Idaho. He should have tested wolves, but didn’t from what I understand. What can be proven is that this tapeworm has existed and has been documented in midwestern states where they are good size wolf populations. The tapeworm has been in those states for years and not one person has gotten the tapeworm or died from it.
I don’t think this wolf project was a failure. I think it was a great success, Who would have thought we would have been able to bring wolves back to places where they belong? Chandie, you can feel however you want about wolf reintroduction, but I believe that it will go down as one of the greatest wildlife restoration stories ever.
Chandie, I try not to dwell on the past. What happened to irremotus was appalling. Humans launching an extermination campaign against it all those years ago. I would have liked it if irremotus still existed, but sadly, they don’t. The northern rockies have always had gray wolves until they were wiped out in certain places. It seem logical to bring gray wolves back to where they once were.
Ken, no matter how many times you insist irremotus was gone, it does not change the DNA of the wolf killed just outside the park in 1992 and Bangs refusal to let the wolf captured in Pinedale and sent off to Texas be DNA tested. The one DNA gotten did not match anything. That seems like a good time to have backed up and done some thinking about this situation.
What about the wolf that killed all of the livestock in eastern Montana, over 100 animals I believe, and supposedly that DNA matched every wolf that ever lived in this part of the world….so of course DOW kept their money.
“As jeff e stated, the locals were killing irremotus whenever they saw them. Irremotus never caused any problems because the locals were killing them. it is not right to assume or claim something without any solid proof or evidence.”
Contradict yourself often ? Who busted these locals for killing an endangered species ? Evidence to support this claim please ?
They weren’t busted timmins. People kept their mouths shut, but probably told a few of their buddies from next store. People were using the shoot shovel and shutup method on wolves way before wlf reintroduction. I have no doubt some irremotus wolves were killed by Idaho locals. You know the same people who claim their smaller native timberwolves didn’t cause them any problems. They sure must have been causing problems all them decades ago if an extermination campaign was launched on them. Don’t ya think?
Say what you want about Ed Bangs. Call him a criminal and claim he supposedly broke the law, but he did his best to listen to both sides of the wolf issue. He may be this or he may be that, but he is the one responsible for successfully reintroducing the wolves back into ecosystems where they were missing from for decades. We owe him a lot of gratitude for bringing wolves back. Kudos to you Ed and enjoy your retirement.
Ken,
Say what you like but I really don’t think you care about our indigenous wolves, or the fact that information was purged by your beloved colleagues that work for the USFWS, under your hero Ed Bangs, who also ordered an irremotus “shot” and another female in estrus that was roped sent off to Texas “pronto.”
hypocrite.
Ken,
Did you ask Ronald M. Nowak why they didn’t introduce the C. l. nubilus population, which he recommended that could be trapped close by in Minnesota for introduction instead of the largest Northern variety of subspecies Canis lupus occidentalis which Ronald M. Nowak took issue with in Cat’s book?
This would of been of course if there were NO remaining population of wolves in Yellowstone, which Ed Bangs claimed, “finding a bigfoot would be more likely than a native wolf,” in Cat’s book, until Jerry Kysar shot the Teton wolf in 1992. Ed Bangs tried very hard to cover-up that “wolf” but the press got a hold of that story too soon. He made darn sure that didn’t happen in 1993-1994 when he hired two college girls, fresh graduates, with no experience to find and locate indigenous wolf populations of the Rocky Mountains. This was set-up.
Chandie, it is you and your ilk that pretend to care about irremotus when infact you don’t. locals were shooting them whenever they saw them. Where were you before wolf reintroduction speaking up for irremotus? You weren’t. You probably sat in your house and did nothing. You don’t care for irremotus nor have you have. You’re just an angry and bitter individual that is mad that wolves were reintroduced. I would have liked it if irremotus was still here in the rockies, but they most likely aren’t. That is not due to reintroduced wolves or the ones that were already coming down here on their own and it was no due to the feds. it was due to what humans did to irremotus all those decades ago killing as many as they could with bounties and poison. The fact is irremotus is gone and never coming back. Occidentalis took its place. You have one wolf gone, another takes its place. This is how nature works. You dwell on something that has happened in the past and something that we can’t change and will never change. Where were you in the 90s before wolf reintroduction speaking up for your supposed beloved irremotus? the wolf you said never caused any problems even though locals were shooting them on sight. Let’s never forget the extermination campaign that was launched on them by hateful/ignorant people who used bounties and poison to kill them off to the point of extinction in the northern rockies. That man said he saw “native timberwolves” in the 80s. He cannot prove that. It’s well documented that wolves in Canada were naturally migrating into Montana on their own in the 80s. Montana fish and wild parks will verify this fact. people use this wrong subspecies argument as a way to discredit wolf reintroduction and that’s it.
It seems as if when some people are given the facts, they choose to ignore them. For instance, it’s well documented that granulosis is in every state where there are good size wolf populations, but people refuse to accept that this tapeworm could have been in Idaho when it’s everywhere else there are wolves. Minnesota and Wisconsin has had granulosis infected wolves for 30-40 years and not one person has been infected or killed by it. This factual information is ignored by the likes of Barry and Chandie. They paint this tapeworm as being more dangerous than it really is. The reintroduced wolves were all given droncit twice which they say is 100% effective yet people like Barry refuse to accept this. My own opinion and it’s just that is that granulosis was in Idaho. delane kritsky testing a few coyotes and finding no tapeworm does not prove that it wasn’t in Idaho. I’m sure if kritsky really wanted to, he could have gotten permission to test a wolf or two if he really wanted to, but no, he tested a few coyotes out of a population of thousands and thousands at that time and came to the conclusion that the tapeworm wasn’t in Idaho. This is all you can back up your claim that the tapeworm wasn’t in Idaho with and this is sad. Know what I can back up my claims with? The fact that WI, MI, MN, AK. canada, all have and have had this tapeworm for decades and decades. So, claim that the tapeworm was non native in Idaho all you want, but the real world facts don’t support your claims. The wolves in Idaho prior to wolf reintroduction are no different than wolves anywhere else. They still carried diseases and tapeworms. Diseases/tapeworms/whatever are a natural part of the wolf and a natural part of the environment and will always be.
Where were you before wolf reintroduction speaking up for irremotus.
Ken Cullings I didn’t even know about wolf introduction. Had no clue and since we didn’t have wolves, or never did on the Palouse, why would I even think about them. We were struggling to survive like everybody else in a logging town, and I was teaching at the time. Didn’t have computers back then, and I got 3 TV stations out where I live on a good clear day. That is changing the antenna direction every time I wanted to watch one of the 3.
To get channel 3, I had to got out behind the wood shed, turn the antenna towards Gold Hill, where they trucked wolves and dumped them behind my house in 2007, witnessed by a rancher on his cattle allotment.
To get channel 4, Old snag behind the barn.
Channel 10-, Chicken House.
Husband was a sawyer working high production logging.
Working Ken Cullings.
Here belatedly is a brief synopsis you requested of the presentation given in Challis Idaho, by the Western Predator Control Association. I seem to always sit straighter in my chair when I know I am writing something for a retired school teacher, but please bear with my faults as I try my best to give you an overview of the meeting. On April 30th Dr. Clay Dethlefsen and Dr. Jack Ward , both representing the Montana based Western Predator Control Association (WPCA) gave the residents of Custer County an update of their research on the canine strain tapeworm Echincoccus granulosus and the resulting complications of Hydatid Disease that results from cysts that form around the parasite as it invades different organs of the ungulate or human body. The disease is dangerous to the host for many reasons, organ function can be impaired, cysts may burst causing lethal shock, and rapid growth of cysts can displace organs causing physical complications. The surgical remedies for removing the cysts are extremely dangerous and costly. Dr. Dethlefsen, President and Executive director of the Association, gave the majority of the presentation with Dr. Jack Ward the Medical Director of the Association being called upon to share his expertise from a long career in the field of Ungulate Pathology. From the opening of the meeting on, Dr. Dethlefsen made it very clear that the focus of their presentation was not about eliminating wolves but was totally focused on their research attempts to produce data that would give Counties in the western states a real handle on the extent of the Echincoccus granulosus infestation geographically, and the level of infestation of all species that may have contracted this parasite from the Canadian Gray Wolf. Several disease vectors were discussed, including canine fecal contamination, mechanical spread of the disease by birds such as magpies, ravens and eagles, and new to most of us, the spread of the disease by insects such as wasps. Dr. Dethlefsen indicated that fecal contamination of our water systems from spring time sheet flow (runoff) through canine fecal material would be a major health issue for us to consider. Health officials in both the countries of Turkey and Romania claim a large percentage of cases of Hydatid Disease infections in their human populations comes from contaminated water supplies. A four phase Eradication Program was discussed that was presented very simply as an effort that would be carried out at a county level until the threat of Hydatid Disease was removed. The plan seemed to have its origination from several countries where the effort was successful in controlling the disease. Those countries were Tasmania, Australia, and Turkey . The Plan followed this order:
1. Preparation Phase
2. Attack Phase
3. Consolidation Phase
4. Maintenance Phase
Dr. Dethlefsen repeated again that the focus of Western Predator Control was to produce Data that would enable Western States to accurately determine the degree of contamination of their ecosystems at the county level and at three demographic interfaces, those being Wilderness, Urban, and Residential. The point was clearly made that the Eradication Plan would be carried out most stringently at the Urban and Residential interfaces and that the “Protocols” were VERY EXPENSIVE!!!!!
At this juncture ,the rather disturbing issue of “Pet Protocols” was brought up. Since the country of Turkey was most advanced in designing regulations for treatment of domestic animals including cats and dogs, in this aspect, Dr. Dethlefsen reviewed what was required for our cats and dogs. The animals must be kenneled during the duration of the Protocol, their feces would need to be collected and destroyed to prevent re-infestation and the kennel area would need to be properly sanitized upon completion of the drug treatments. The drug Praziquantel was used and administered three times at two week intervals at an estimated cost of fifty to sixty dollars per treatment per animal (This is what Ed Bangs SHOULD have done with his wolves but did nothing!!!!!) This would put the cost of the drug treatment alone at over $150.00 per animal with the added expense of the kenneling. In Turkey the disease is considered so dangerous both health wise and economically that the treatments are funded by the government. The meeting then turned to the issue of the Scope of the Eradication Program. At this point both Dr. Ward and Dr. Dethlefsen concurred that all “sister” counties MUST be involved in the same control efforts if there is to be a successful elimination of Echincoccus granulosus. This would include sister counties across state lines. Dr. Dethlesen covered some aspects of sampling of canines, ungulates, and avian species that volunteers could do in lieu of training that WPCA would be giving for those people in each county that were interested in helping out with sampling. A very interesting issue came up at this point , Dr. Dethlefsen made the statement that it was just as important to find out with the sampling effort what areas had NOT been infested YET as it was those areas that were infested. He reiterated that by finding “clean areas” we could determine where the parasite was being carried from and we could put great emphasis on keeping those areas “clean” and pursuing the infestation where it was occurring.
Sadly another case of “deliberate incompetence” on the part of Ed Bangs came up when a question was fielded regarding the types of “care” given the Canadian Gray Wolves before they were released into our states. Dr. Dethlefsen stated that NO significance was given to the Echincoccus issue as a health threat to humans in the introduction areas and as a consequence the only treatments given the wolves for both the hard and soft releases were for THE HEALTH OF THE WOLVES!!!!! Everyone in the audience realized instantly that we had been allowed to believe that the wolves had been screened and treated for any threat to humans from diseases they were carrying , but in reality NOTHING had been done in this regard!!! The audience at this point was very visibly angered!! At this time a man from the audience stood up and faced the room and remarked that to Ed Bangs and Company the tapeworm was a non-issue, but to his family it was an extremely devastating disease, since his wife had just had a Hydatid cyst removed from her liver. He stated that the family was hoping and praying that there were no more cysts that the doctors had missed. The gentleman remarked that his part of the cost for his wife’s surgery was 63,000 dollars!
Question and answer time came next, with both Drs. Dethlefsen and Ward fielding the questions. An outfitter asked why Canada was not having a problem with Hydatid disease and if cougars and bears were also carriers? Dr. Dethlefsen responded that Canada was having a problem with Hydatid Disease at the present but that it was hard to extract the data from them because there was a lockdown on Canadian medical stats and he was not sure why. He responded to the second question that bear and cougar did not appear to be a significant carrier of the disease and that indeed in Asia there was a porcine strain of Echincoccus that bears carried but that it was not an issue here in North America. The conclusion of that question and answer was that the sampling being done would be very revealing as to which species in our ecosystems were the greatest carriers of the tapeworm and that when the data was in, Western States could take appropriate actions, but the actions must be science driven. An overhead was used during this time that showed the sampling data that WPCA had generated so far in testing Wolves from Ravalli County , Montana, from Lemhi and Custer Counties in Idaho, and from areas in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. The level of infestation was from 62% to 84% with the samples generally well distributed over the sampling areas. Clearly our counties in Idaho have a very serious problem to deal with since a 2006 report on Echincoccus in the north central part of Idaho showed over 60% of wolves as carriers of this tapeworm. Senator Jeff Siddoway asked some very pertinent questions, and then concluded that Dr. Dethlefsen was telling us that the only way to deal with wolves as the main carrier of Echincoccus granulosus was for Idaho to kill ALL the Canadian Gray Wolves. Again Dr. Dethlefsen was very firm in replying that he did not tell us that, but was showing us that we had a POTENTIAL health disaster to get prepared for and that WPCA could help by revealing to the counties where the carriers were and had come from. At this point Mrs. Bartell, yours truly, asked a question I had been waiting a long time to ask of somebody with the background to give us an authoritative answer. I asked Dr. Clay how the Echincoccus tapeworm traveled thru the hosts body and if could become systemic to a point that the tissues or meat of the carcass was contaminated. I think his shocking answer finally got through to our local cattle producers who have had their heads in the sand. He answered that upon ingestion of shed eggs from the gravid section of the tapeworm, the eggs hatch and mature and some migrate thru the intestinal wall and usually get into the blood stream. From the blood stream the worm can end up in several organs, such as the liver,lungs, or brain. Other viable worms can end up in the capillary buds thus contaminating the tissues of the carcass!!!!! Dr. Dethlefsen stopped for a few seconds to let the impact of this sink in. He then continued by stating that if the Hydatid Disease is found in either wild or domestic ungulates the days of asking , “How do you want your steak done?” are over!!!!!! The meat if eaten MUST be WELL COOKED!!! That was as close to a rancher’s wakeup call as I ever think I will ever hear!
In closing, Dr. Dethlefsen advised us to look into designing local ordinances, to study our State C Constitutions and local ordinances that are already in place for controlling infectious diseases. Also briefly discussed at the meetings end was the abuse of NEPA mandates which dictate by law that “HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY BE CONSIDERED AS WELL AS ECONOMIC IMPACTS BEFORE A SPECIES IS PROTECTED OR RELEASED IN AN AREA OF CONCERN”.
Ken Cullings,
We have people in Idaho with Hydatid Disease now.
We are never going to cross the divide between those that have no reponsibility and all of the power versus those with no power and all of the responsibility. I do have a question, most of you live in cities and the number of unwanted animals euthanized is horrendous in cities, what sepcifically do you do to protect those animals? You are calling us all kinds of names because we don’t want to raise any more wolves than we agreed to, which to you is an indication that we do not care about living things, so you surely work hard to prevent homeless pets being killed.
the wolf you said never caused any problems even though locals were shooting them on sight
Ken Cullings you are misquoting me. Where did I ever say irremotus NEVER caused problems? Post it here please.
That man said he saw “native timberwolves” in the 80s. He cannot prove that
Ken Cullings watch that video again carefully. Pay CLOSE attention to how this man was treated by the USFWS. This is a consistent pattern throughout the Northern Rocky Mountain States, that was replayed over time and time again, to force wolf introduction on us.
There’s a lot more people out there like this man that are READY to talk. I can guarantee you that. Both AGENCIES STATE and FEDERAL and employees inside them were part of this carefully orchestrated cover-up of indigenous wolf populations.
It wasn’t the good people of Idaho, Wyoming, or Montana that destroyed this species, it was your “ilk” and your colleagues.
Pay close attention what this guy is saying, and how he was treated, and learn from it. We will never forget it.
Barry, you really do expose yourself. It wasn’t in Idaho? Care to prove that? No, you can’t nor will you ever. Please, give it up you phony. You’re making yourself look bad. You are ONLY BASING THIS on Kritsky not finding it in a few coyotes he tested. Here is the proof that I have on my side. Numerous states in the midwest that have had wolves for decades also have had this tapeworm for decades and read my words, NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN INFECTED WITH THE TAPEWORM OR KILLED BY IT. Yeah, that’s right, so you can continue to deny the truth all you want. Alaska and Canada both have this tapeworm and have had it for decades and decades and both of these states as I understand it don’t see it as a concern. If you want an expert to talk to that has studied this tapeworm, get in touch with William Foreyt.
” If by chance it was in Idaho, which it wasn’t, ”
And you are basing this off of the fact that delane kritsky didn’t find it in the few coyotes he tested. Yeah, whatever you say. I love it how you ignore the fact that this tapeworm has been found in every midwestern state that has wolves and it’s found in Alaska and Canada and just about all other places where there are good size wolf populations. Just give it up. You’re making yourself look foolish and bad. Get a clue. Minnesota and Wisconsin have had their granulosis infected wolves for 30-40 years according to disease expert William Foreyt and guess what, not one person has been infected with it or killed by it. You continue to live in denial.
By Ken, 8-16-11
Barry, you really do expose yourself. It wasn’t in Idaho? Care to prove that? No, you can’t nor will you ever. Please, give it up you phony. You’re making yourself look bad. You are ONLY BASING THIS on Kritsky not finding it in a few coyotes he tested. Here is the proof that I have on my side
Ken Cullings, Yes we’ll prove it. Take me a few min. or tomorrow to find the studies. I don’t see your “data” anywhere.
Ken, You’re interesting me. Care to go on a live radio show and discuss your “expertise” on this issue. We’ll let you choose who you want to debate against. We’ll do a nice “round-table” discussion for the “sake” of fair-play. Show will be live and taped.
Take that back you don’t get to choose. Round-table about. You are the “honored guest” live, no rehearsal.
Hope you don’t mind a legislature or two as well, add some biodiversity to the discussion.
Let me know. cb
No, you cannot prove it. You only believe it wasn’t in Idaho before wolf reintroduction because that is what Delane Kritsky told you. He tested a few coyotes and didn’t find it in them and then assumed it wasn’t in Idaho. This is laughable.
This is the only “proof” you and Barry have.
“you should also know that I have examined coyotes (which can carry both species of Echinococcus) and foxes from southeastern Idaho since 1974 and never found either Echinococcus multilocularis nor E. granulosus”
You know who this is from. I don’t have any proof that proves one way or another if the tapeworm was in Idaho or not before wolf reintroduction. What I do know if that reintroduced wolves were treated with medicines that are known to kill parasites. What I also is is granulosis being documented in numerous midwestern states where there have been wolves for decades and not one person has gotten the tapeworm and died from it. Canada and Alaska also have the tapeworm and both states consider the tapeworm to not be that big of a concern. The cdc also doesn’t think it’s an overly big concern.
This is the only “proof” you and Barry have.%D%A%D%A”you should also know that I have examined coyotes (which can carry both species of Echinococcus) and foxes from southeastern Idaho since 1974 and never found either Echinococcus multilocularis nor E. granulosus”%D%A%D%AYou know who this is from. I don\t have any proof that proves one way or another if the tapeworm was in Idaho or not before wolf reintroduction. What I do know if that reintroduced wolves were treated with medicines that are known to kill parasites. What I also is is granulosis being documented in numerous midwestern states where there have been wolves for decades and not one person has gotten the tapeworm and died from it. Canada and Alaska also have the tapeworm and both states consider the tapeworm to not be that big of a concern. The cdc also doesn\t think it\s an overly big concern.
You continue to live in denial.
We have people in Idaho with Hydatid Disease now. You ARE in denial.
Having established homo sapiens as the predominant species, all that was left was to determine a way to classify people in such a way that, eventually that classification can inherit what is left of the earth.
We have implemented race.
We have begun to rid the earth of species.
It is contrary to our goals to reintroduce a species which has already been obliterated…
By JEFF E, 8-16-11
Now Chandie, I was not looking for you when I went to Potlatch. As for being easy to find, of that I am quite sure.
Now you wouldn’t be referring to those two college kids you guys sent out to my house a few weeks ago? WA license plate. One chubby dark haired boy, round face…with a blond slender college age male, who looked quite embarrassed; wanting to walk up the logging road to look for wolves?
Ha Ha, wonderful stuff!
Michelle, stay home. We will take care of the wolves, and we will still have wolves 20 years from now. I am preparting my tanning solutions from wolf hides as we speak. Another renewable resource!
Unfornately, our native montana moose (Sirus) will probably be gone in another 20 years due to wolf predation. I guess that since the all knowing environmentalists had to have wolves, we will have to live with it. That is to bad. I harvested two of those over the past 30 years and they fed the family well. Regulated hunting with a drawing for a permit allowed people to utilize the moose and provide habitat and studies for them. I don’t think wolf meat is edible, however. Now our moose area has one token permit, and I have not seen a moose in the area for about 10 years.
Oh, well, maybe a wolf hide is worth a few bucks. Perhaps I could save a few elk or moose from being eaten alive by these predators. Maybe even save a few of the neighbors cows in the long run.
After a few years of reading/posting on the wolf fiasco here,it’s the same old sh*t every time.
Majority of comments are anti-hunter,hunters are evil,mean,cowards,etc.
A lot are anti-ranher/ranching, some are anti-outfitter,guided hunt.
A few of the posters would be a lot more credible if they dropped all the anti-hunting/hunter BS.
Even more would be credible if they stopped posting links from biased sources.
I have to say,after the years of reading posts on this issue,and starting out vehemently anti-wolf ESA protection, that reason has prevailed,and wolves will be managed by hunting. I do not,however, agree with Wyomings plan.
Last-the poster who made the most sense on this thread is Dewey. I know he has been a hunter for years,and worked for outfitters. I am still a hunter,and will not be wolf hunting,I don’t shoot animals I don’t eat.
Todd’s posts make sense most of the time too,just a bit too far to the anti-wolf side,the majority of the rest are so anti-hunter/hunting,that the become meaningless due to that.
Another anti-hunting,anti-hunter thread.
For what it’s worth,and I’ve posted this before in the past couple of years,as early as the late 70′s,early 80′s there were wolves in the backcountry of NW Montana,saw them myself,saw tracks regularly,and yes, I know the difference between wolf, dog, and coyote tracks.