Wolf news
10-30-2005, 08:02 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 586
Wolf news
From the Missoulian, Oct 26, 2005
Biologists that know more than me and probablymost forum members say wolves are a problem for elk, and the system around Yellowstone is unnatural. The wolves that were introduced are not the native wolf. There are certainly more than 100 in each neighboring state, and the population isgrowing exponentially (like nature does). Other biologists, who also know more than me, even pro hunting ones, say its just a new balance and elk will merely change their habits.
The numbers are not entirely indicative because the calves are the ones being killed. It is future elk that are dwindling, not adults.
Wolves are livestock and game killing varmints and should be treated as such.I live near and hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem. Statewide averages do not apply here. It is not a privilege to see elk eating varmints when hunting elk.
Interesting news, no matter where you reside on this issue . . . .
Montana gains control of its wolves
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian
Proclaiming it both a biological and a political success story, Interior Secretary Gale Norton on Monday announced plans to turn over the management of Montana's booming population of gray wolves to Montanans.
In the 10 years since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone National Park and the central Idaho wilderness, wolf numbers have grown "far more quickly than anyone ever predicted," Norton said.
[align=center][/align]"We have seen a species recover," she said. "That's one success story. But so is the cooperation we've seen between state and federal governments."
About 850 wolves now inhabit Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, said Ed Bangs, the federal government's wolf recovery coordinator. Of those, about 700 animals are in the Yellowstone ecosystem and central Idaho.
Under the rule announced Monday, the states of Montana and Idaho - and Indian tribes in those states - can assume virtually all responsibility for wolf management, if they have Fish and Wildlife Service-approved wolf management plans.
Montana and Idaho already have such plans, so will take over most wolf-management duties within the next few months.
The Nez Perce Tribe of central Idaho has also submitted a management plan for federal review.
Wyoming has been the holdout, refusing to write a plan that would maintain a healthy population of wolves in that state.
In Montana, gray wolf program coordinator Carolyn Seim said Monday's announcement was "very welcome news."
"We do believe this is a positive step forward," Seim said. "We've worked very hard to put a plan together, and we feel this rule rewards our efforts as an agency - and the efforts of the people of Montana."
Already, the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has taken the lead in managing wolves in northwestern Montana, where the species is protected as threatened.
The new rule affects those wolves considered "experimental, nonessential" animals by the federal government when they were released into Yellowstone Park and the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in January 1995.
The dividing line between "threatened" wolves and those considered "nonessential" is
Interstate 90.
With the new rule, Seim said Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks will take the lead on wolf management statewide.
"We feel like we are ready to go," she said. "And we feel like we have a public that supports state-led wolf management."
In Idaho, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne hailed the change in a telephone news conference with reporters.
The objective, he said, "is an atmosphere and an environment that allows the species to do well."
"This is a tremendous step forward for the state of Idaho," Kempthorne said. "The old rule was written to protect 25 to 50 wolves. Now we have over 500 wolves; the dynamics have changed, so the management also must change."
Besides delivering more authority to the states, the new rule also gives private landowners greater flexibility in dealing with "problem" wolves.
The regulation provides that:
Wolves attacking livestock, dogs or livestock-herding animals on private land can be killed by landowners without prior written approval.
Wolves attacking livestock and livestock-herding or livestock-guarding animals on public grazing allotments can be killed by grazing permitees, guides or outfitters, and on ceded lands by tribal members without written approval.
Wolves causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife populations, such as herds of deer and elk, can be killed by state or tribal agencies - but only after the states or tribes complete science-based analyses that have been subjected to public and peer review, and have been approved by the federal government.
States can also issue written authorization to landowners or grazing permitees to control wolves that consistently pose a threat to their livestock.
Bangs, at the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the new rules "will tend to keep wolves from spreading out into other areas."
"Right now, all the good wolf habitat in Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area is filled with wolves," Bangs said. "This won't change population densities in those areas much at all. But it will tend to keep the population within the primary recovery areas."
And it will be easier to kill wolves, he said. "Under the old rule, a wolf had to have its teeth in the livestock for a rancher to shoot. Under the new rule, it has to be a foot away, chasing them. It's a small difference, but a significant one."
Seim, however, said the state of Montana has no intention of "just going out there and eliminating wolves."
"No," she said. "That's not what we are about."
"Our plan works to integrate wolves into the human and the natural landscape," Seim said. "It works to find ways to have wolves fit in."
The key difference with state management, she said, will be the closer proximity of wolf managers to wolf populations.
"We'll have people living in these communities, working closely with landowners," she said. "That's a big difference from my perspective. It allows the state agency to be very responsive."
Money continues to be a concern for state wildlife managers, Seim said. A fully implemented wolf management program would cost about $900,000 a year - in Montana alone.
But the federal government is working to give the state the needed funds, and Montana's program will gradually increase as the money increases, according to Seim.
Montana is disappointed that wolves will remain on the Endangered Species List - and will remain there until Wyoming adopts a wolf-management plan, Seim added. "We would prefer that today's announcement was the delisting announcement, but we still see it as a positive step."
Not everyone was enthused by Norton's decision, including Defenders of Wildlife - one of the national conservation groups that championed wolf reintroduction.
"While Defenders of Wildlife supports strong and active state participation in managing wolves, it is essential that such management does not erase or compromise the incredible achievements made under the reintroduction program to date," said Nina Fascione, the group's vice president of field conservation.
"The new rule potentially jeopardizes wolf recovery efforts just as they were beginning to show some success," she said.
Said Suzanne Stone, the group's Rocky Mountain field representative, "After more than a century of extermination efforts in the West, and with illegal wolf killing on the rise, it is irresponsible to severely loosen restrictions on killing wolves."
The new rule takes effect in Montana and Idaho in 30 days.
Biologists that know more than me and probablymost forum members say wolves are a problem for elk, and the system around Yellowstone is unnatural. The wolves that were introduced are not the native wolf. There are certainly more than 100 in each neighboring state, and the population isgrowing exponentially (like nature does). Other biologists, who also know more than me, even pro hunting ones, say its just a new balance and elk will merely change their habits.
The numbers are not entirely indicative because the calves are the ones being killed. It is future elk that are dwindling, not adults.
Wolves are livestock and game killing varmints and should be treated as such.I live near and hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem. Statewide averages do not apply here. It is not a privilege to see elk eating varmints when hunting elk.
Interesting news, no matter where you reside on this issue . . . .
Montana gains control of its wolves
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian
Proclaiming it both a biological and a political success story, Interior Secretary Gale Norton on Monday announced plans to turn over the management of Montana's booming population of gray wolves to Montanans.
In the 10 years since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone National Park and the central Idaho wilderness, wolf numbers have grown "far more quickly than anyone ever predicted," Norton said.
[align=center][/align]"We have seen a species recover," she said. "That's one success story. But so is the cooperation we've seen between state and federal governments."
About 850 wolves now inhabit Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, said Ed Bangs, the federal government's wolf recovery coordinator. Of those, about 700 animals are in the Yellowstone ecosystem and central Idaho.
Under the rule announced Monday, the states of Montana and Idaho - and Indian tribes in those states - can assume virtually all responsibility for wolf management, if they have Fish and Wildlife Service-approved wolf management plans.
Montana and Idaho already have such plans, so will take over most wolf-management duties within the next few months.
The Nez Perce Tribe of central Idaho has also submitted a management plan for federal review.
Wyoming has been the holdout, refusing to write a plan that would maintain a healthy population of wolves in that state.
In Montana, gray wolf program coordinator Carolyn Seim said Monday's announcement was "very welcome news."
"We do believe this is a positive step forward," Seim said. "We've worked very hard to put a plan together, and we feel this rule rewards our efforts as an agency - and the efforts of the people of Montana."
Already, the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has taken the lead in managing wolves in northwestern Montana, where the species is protected as threatened.
The new rule affects those wolves considered "experimental, nonessential" animals by the federal government when they were released into Yellowstone Park and the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in January 1995.
The dividing line between "threatened" wolves and those considered "nonessential" is
Interstate 90.
With the new rule, Seim said Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks will take the lead on wolf management statewide.
"We feel like we are ready to go," she said. "And we feel like we have a public that supports state-led wolf management."
In Idaho, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne hailed the change in a telephone news conference with reporters.
The objective, he said, "is an atmosphere and an environment that allows the species to do well."
"This is a tremendous step forward for the state of Idaho," Kempthorne said. "The old rule was written to protect 25 to 50 wolves. Now we have over 500 wolves; the dynamics have changed, so the management also must change."
Besides delivering more authority to the states, the new rule also gives private landowners greater flexibility in dealing with "problem" wolves.
The regulation provides that:
Wolves attacking livestock, dogs or livestock-herding animals on private land can be killed by landowners without prior written approval.
Wolves attacking livestock and livestock-herding or livestock-guarding animals on public grazing allotments can be killed by grazing permitees, guides or outfitters, and on ceded lands by tribal members without written approval.
Wolves causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife populations, such as herds of deer and elk, can be killed by state or tribal agencies - but only after the states or tribes complete science-based analyses that have been subjected to public and peer review, and have been approved by the federal government.
States can also issue written authorization to landowners or grazing permitees to control wolves that consistently pose a threat to their livestock.
Bangs, at the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the new rules "will tend to keep wolves from spreading out into other areas."
"Right now, all the good wolf habitat in Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area is filled with wolves," Bangs said. "This won't change population densities in those areas much at all. But it will tend to keep the population within the primary recovery areas."
And it will be easier to kill wolves, he said. "Under the old rule, a wolf had to have its teeth in the livestock for a rancher to shoot. Under the new rule, it has to be a foot away, chasing them. It's a small difference, but a significant one."
Seim, however, said the state of Montana has no intention of "just going out there and eliminating wolves."
"No," she said. "That's not what we are about."
"Our plan works to integrate wolves into the human and the natural landscape," Seim said. "It works to find ways to have wolves fit in."
The key difference with state management, she said, will be the closer proximity of wolf managers to wolf populations.
"We'll have people living in these communities, working closely with landowners," she said. "That's a big difference from my perspective. It allows the state agency to be very responsive."
Money continues to be a concern for state wildlife managers, Seim said. A fully implemented wolf management program would cost about $900,000 a year - in Montana alone.
But the federal government is working to give the state the needed funds, and Montana's program will gradually increase as the money increases, according to Seim.
Montana is disappointed that wolves will remain on the Endangered Species List - and will remain there until Wyoming adopts a wolf-management plan, Seim added. "We would prefer that today's announcement was the delisting announcement, but we still see it as a positive step."
Not everyone was enthused by Norton's decision, including Defenders of Wildlife - one of the national conservation groups that championed wolf reintroduction.
"While Defenders of Wildlife supports strong and active state participation in managing wolves, it is essential that such management does not erase or compromise the incredible achievements made under the reintroduction program to date," said Nina Fascione, the group's vice president of field conservation.
"The new rule potentially jeopardizes wolf recovery efforts just as they were beginning to show some success," she said.
Said Suzanne Stone, the group's Rocky Mountain field representative, "After more than a century of extermination efforts in the West, and with illegal wolf killing on the rise, it is irresponsible to severely loosen restrictions on killing wolves."
The new rule takes effect in Montana and Idaho in 30 days.
10-30-2005, 08:46 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
Actually, there was a paper done about 2 years ago that made a pretty convincing case for the theory that the absence of wolves from Yellowstone was actually slowly degrading that ecosystem in a type of trophic cascade. So, please don't state that biologists are on your side because we aren't. At least the responsible ones are not. I'm sure you can find some malcontents that wish to twist data to the anti-wolf cause.
And as far as these wolves "not the native wolf" is incorrect. They are the same species(Canislupus)and indeed the same subspecies (Canis lupus lycaon). You can make the case that their DNA is not 100% the same but that would such a case of splitting hairs it would be laughed at within the scientific community, which it is.
But of course this has all been brought forward before in other threads that stretched dozens of pages so there is no need to open up this can of worms again.
Trying to have an intellectually responsible debate about wolves in this forum is pretty much the same as ramming a brick wall repeatedly.
And as far as these wolves "not the native wolf" is incorrect. They are the same species(Canislupus)and indeed the same subspecies (Canis lupus lycaon). You can make the case that their DNA is not 100% the same but that would such a case of splitting hairs it would be laughed at within the scientific community, which it is.
But of course this has all been brought forward before in other threads that stretched dozens of pages so there is no need to open up this can of worms again.
Trying to have an intellectually responsible debate about wolves in this forum is pretty much the same as ramming a brick wall repeatedly.
10-30-2005, 10:31 PM
#3
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 1,063
RE: Wolf news
Are you seriously pro-wolf... and wait you live in Idaho too? Wow, i am speechless.
By the way, i walked accross a wolf kill this weekend in a area that f&g's biologists refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are wolves in the area. The animal was slashed into and then left to die.... yeah you just got to love those little cute, friendly wolves.
By the way, i walked accross a wolf kill this weekend in a area that f&g's biologists refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are wolves in the area. The animal was slashed into and then left to die.... yeah you just got to love those little cute, friendly wolves.
10-31-2005, 12:35 AM
#4
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IDAHO
Posts: 252
RE: Wolf news
IMO There sure seems to be alot of pro-wolf protectors in this hunting forum. The everyday hunter knows that there's "NO" good use for a wolf. Especially transplanted from another area and to top it off "protected". I believe a hunter should have every right to put food on his table. Wolves as stated in many previous posts and threads seem to kill for the thrill. Very close comparison to a poacher that kills and leaves a trophy to rot.
I'm not saying all wolves should be eliminated, but clearly should be controlled. Fine$$$ a poacher!! Let the wolves thrill kill?? Something definately needs to change. I don't want to open a box of worms here, so those who disagree please remember this isjust my opinion.
I'm not saying all wolves should be eliminated, but clearly should be controlled. Fine$$$ a poacher!! Let the wolves thrill kill?? Something definately needs to change. I don't want to open a box of worms here, so those who disagree please remember this isjust my opinion.
10-31-2005, 10:39 AM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,395
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: jones123
Money continues to be a concern for state wildlife managers, Seim said. A fully implemented wolf management program would cost about $900,000 a year - in Montana alone.
Money continues to be a concern for state wildlife managers, Seim said. A fully implemented wolf management program would cost about $900,000 a year - in Montana alone.
Too bad Montana will nothire me to manage there wolf program? I could save tax paying montana residents 800,000 a year.
Good luck hunting,
WolfKiller
10-31-2005, 11:18 AM
#6
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hurley, NY
Posts: 864
RE: Wolf news
Let me tell you guys something.. ANY Wolf that walks past me will have the .35 Whelen blazing towards his vitals. I am positive there are none in NY where I hunt but if there were it would be a goner for sure. You guys should be dropping them at every sighting. They are going to be the downfall of your great western hunting as you know it. soon you will be hunting grizzly's and wolves only.
10-31-2005, 01:01 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: Idaho hunter 58
Are you seriously pro-wolf... and wait you live in Idaho too? Wow, i am speechless.
By the way, i walked accross a wolf kill this weekend in a area that f&g's biologists refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are wolves in the area. The animal was slashed into and then left to die.... yeah you just got to love those little cute, friendly wolves.
Are you seriously pro-wolf... and wait you live in Idaho too? Wow, i am speechless.
By the way, i walked accross a wolf kill this weekend in a area that f&g's biologists refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are wolves in the area. The animal was slashed into and then left to die.... yeah you just got to love those little cute, friendly wolves.
There is so much misinformation and politcally charged BS coming from both sides, it's important to look at the research to get an idea of what the real long term effects of wolves will be. (Yes I know what you'll say to that: "Scientists with an agenda blah blah blah, egomaniac academics in Ivory Towers blah blah blah" well when it gets to that stage of ignorance, the anti-wolfers have just lost any chance at being able to mounta credible opposition.)
Would you feel different if you found a calf that waspartially eaten by a black bear? Or is that ok because it wasn't a wolf?
I'm not trying to take a side, I'm trying to interject some factual information and some reason into what is otherwise a purely emotional debate with little or no logic behind the positions ofeither side.
The good thing is, as soon as Wyoming gets their act together and produces an acceptable management plan, then the wolves can be delisted and actively managed by the state wildlife agencies. Which means TAGS!!heheh.
Oh andeveryone always says: "They won't admit that there is wolves there" etc etc. Well, officially no they won't. Becausethey don't have collared wolves in every packanymore like they did in previous years. So, now there are many new packs that theya) don't know exist or b)don'thave official documentation of them(like radio collar locations). So they aren't just going to go saying stuff off the cuff about a sensative subject like this.
So it's nothing to get all worked up over. Ifyou want to be angry about something, be angry at Wyoming Fish andGame. They can't get their act together so that the states can start actively managing their wolf population.
But the biggest problem is when we, as hunters, start foaming at the mouth and making any kind of cooperation impossible and the dissemination of factual information very difficult.
10-31-2005, 02:35 PM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
Trying to have an intellectually responsible debate about wolves in this forum is pretty much the same as ramming a brick wall repeatedly.
Trying to have an intellectually responsible debate about wolves in this forum is pretty much the same as ramming a brick wall repeatedly.
10-31-2005, 06:48 PM
#10
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
RE: Wolf news
Hi jones123
I find all this concern from hunters over the fact that a few wolves are running around a bit odd. I live in BC and was raised in Alberta which i believe was the source of the wolf population in yellowstone.
I believe the Montana biologists were looking for wolves that in fact were use to hunting elk so Alberta wolves. were relocated instead of say Alaska wolves.Since then many more wolves have found their way into Idaho all by them selves through the Flathead River Valley in southern BC.
I assure you there is still plenty of elk in Alberta even though the wolf population is much higher than you have stateside.
In Northern BC, we have mountains with caribou, moose, elk, deer, sheep, goats,black/grizzly bears and WOLVESall gettin along togetherjust fine. Seems to be room for everyone and I have taken several 6 point elk in 2 years.
As a trophy, a big wolf hunted fair chase is second to none, certainly tougher than takin an elk.
When I use to work in the arctic I saw that without wolves killing and in fact even overkilling caribou, the barren ground grizzlies were probably unlikely to survive the first month of spring. The only food available to them was old wolf kills left on the ice months earlier. Both the caribou and the wolves were by this time, hundreds of miles away. The wolverine was another beneficiary of this behavior.
I hope given more time, montana hunters can declare a truce just like those of us who cant immagine not sharing our hunting grounds with the wolf.
Happy Hunting
I find all this concern from hunters over the fact that a few wolves are running around a bit odd. I live in BC and was raised in Alberta which i believe was the source of the wolf population in yellowstone.
I believe the Montana biologists were looking for wolves that in fact were use to hunting elk so Alberta wolves. were relocated instead of say Alaska wolves.Since then many more wolves have found their way into Idaho all by them selves through the Flathead River Valley in southern BC.
I assure you there is still plenty of elk in Alberta even though the wolf population is much higher than you have stateside.
In Northern BC, we have mountains with caribou, moose, elk, deer, sheep, goats,black/grizzly bears and WOLVESall gettin along togetherjust fine. Seems to be room for everyone and I have taken several 6 point elk in 2 years.
As a trophy, a big wolf hunted fair chase is second to none, certainly tougher than takin an elk.
When I use to work in the arctic I saw that without wolves killing and in fact even overkilling caribou, the barren ground grizzlies were probably unlikely to survive the first month of spring. The only food available to them was old wolf kills left on the ice months earlier. Both the caribou and the wolves were by this time, hundreds of miles away. The wolverine was another beneficiary of this behavior.
I hope given more time, montana hunters can declare a truce just like those of us who cant immagine not sharing our hunting grounds with the wolf.
Happy Hunting