Wolves: problem or not?
 

I have been hearing that some folks think wolves are a big problem in Wyoming while other folks don't. What is the story, and try to keep on topic and avoid acrimony, if possible. I guess I'm interested in this from the big game hunter's perspective, as I am an Elk Hunter wannabee. Are wolves dramatically decreasing elk hunting oppotunities, moderating elk hunting opportunities, or having negligible effect on elk hunting opportunties in their area of reintroduction in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If this is a problem in these three states, what prevents these wolves from propogating to the Colorado rockies? Is there too much of a break in wolf habitate from the Idaho/Montana/Wyoming nexus to support the wolves propogating to Colorado?

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Boy you picked a very controversial and emotional subject.

My opinion, they are no good here in Wy. They kill and eat, and documented not always eating, just killing,they are diminishing my opportunities, my sons, and my grand childrens to hunt. I see no good at all. In some areas of NW Wyoming elk and moose have been hit pretty hard. And yes they are spreading, two packs in the Big Horns, three wolves seen and documented killing cattle 50 miles from NW Colorado, I believe they are there. One was hit by a car on I70 west of Denver last winter. Just give it some thought, last accurate count was 800 to 1000 wolves in Wy, Id, and Mt. How many elk can that many wolves eat? If Alaska and Canada did not have some management or hunting , where would the big game herds be? Give it some deep thought. We have no control, unlimited food supply, equaling the great caribou herds, and no barriers.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

They suck!!!!!!!!!!!

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Well when your hunting area gets overrun with wolves and there are not even half of the elk left from before the wolves were intoduced then you will not like them too. I hate them to be honest but what can we do other than shoot them and maybe go to jail if we get caught!:eek: To answer you question just look at the Gardner Montaina Hunt it used to be a deperdation hunt just to thin out the elk comming out of yellowstone park. The best hunting was in January and I don't know off the top of my head how many elk tags but a couple of thousand tags for sure. In fact they had to sepetate the tags into different days just to keep the hunters from shooting each other. Their was a lot of hunters and a lot of endless lines of elk. The joke was that you didn't realy need your rifle you just needed a good pair of running sneakers because the first one to an elk taged it. When a realy big bull came through it was common to have 1/2 dozen or so hunters shooting at it and their was fist fights to boot. I was almost a guarented hunt for a big bull, it wasn't realy a hunt but a slaughter to keep the herds in check. Anyway I never hunted it but my dad had friends that did and I have read about it in newspapers and magazines. Anyway that has all changed now and last I heard 2 years ago that hunt is still going, but limited to very few tags at only a couple of hundred or so. Thats all because the wolves have killed so many elk in yellowstone park. Now that wouldn't be much of a problem if they just stayed in yellowstone, but being inrtoduced in central Idaho and others moving out of the park. And each year they are populating more and more. So yes the wolves are a big problem, and yes they do suck!

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Wolves are a problem and its only getting worse from year to year. I have personally have seen the devastating effects in the destruction in which they leave behind. They are a killing machine. The 04 elk season i came across so many elk kills in my 10 day hunt--cows, calves, and 3 bulls. Even had a wolf come within 10 yards of my boy and I. I see there tracks, scat, and even heard one howl. I believe it was 3-4 years ago i was hunting deer and i heard something coming up the ridge i was on, and had 2 wolves pop out right beside me. I told the F&G check station about it and they said there was no wolves in that area, LOL, the wolves are pretty much where there is elk, not that hard to figure out where they want to be, where there is a food source. I read in the paper recently where the F&G found 2 wolves that had been shot, in the area i hunt, me and my boy were doing high 5'S. I have talked to other hunters, and there has been alot of them saying that their specific areas in which they have hunted for years, and have been sucessful for years for harvesting elk, that the elk are just not plentiful like it was in the past. And now alot of these hunters are looking for other areas to hunt, since the wolves evidently have invaded there honey holes. A dog is a mans best friend, but a wolf is a hunters worst enemy, in my opinion!!!

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I don't care one way or the other about wolves (I don't hate them, for example), but I do feel strongly about preserving hunting opportunities. Who was the mastermind behind reintroducing these animals into the Rocky Mountains? Why wasn't it enough that they had strong presence in Alaska and Canada? Since this reintroduction began about 10 years ago, I imagine some genius in the Clinton administration set this ball rolling. With a Republican President, Senate, and House, isn't there some way to reverse this thing?

I have also noticed that there is some divide between the way the US Fish and Game department views the wolves versus the local State game wardens. I may have the US agency misnamed, but you get my drift. What is that story all about? People working for the US agency have been sworn to toe the Wolf-party line or be unemployed?

It seems just stupid to have elk -- a valuable resource which many have paid lots of money to see expanded and preserved (through elk habitat preservation and restoration, for example) -- just get gobbled up by wolves.

I have also read that the target population of the initial actions indicated there would be some 300 wolves (300 per state, 300 total, 10 packs of 10 wolves each for each state, something like this), but that the numbers are way over this amount now and with no natural limitation on the continued growth of their numbers -- other than the crashing of elk and moose populations.

Surely there is some solution to this problem?

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

It came about during the Klinton administration, but I am sure some repubs had thier fingers in it. The Endangered Species act, is what brought it about. Yes the USF&W, US Fish and Wildlife Service is driving it and disallowing Wyomings recovery plan because of the word "Preditor". Wyoming wants it classified as that out of the park. Pretty much open season, shooting or trapping, in the park trophy game with restrictions. The USF&W is pretty green, I am yet to meet one of them that actually hunts or own a gun other than a service handgun.

The state of Wy, a coalition of ranchers and hunting groups filed suit last friday in court and the opening arguments were read. I have no idea where this will go, it works for the anti's. I am not sure I want to see Wy get control as it will just break the WY G&F. I highly doubt there ever will be a hunting season as the anti's will sue and counter sue to stop it, only costing more money. The grizly was handed over the state of wy years ago, and a promise when the population hit 500 the state could have seasons and hunting, well 20 years later, 500 to 800 grizzlys and no season or one on the horizon. The grizzly management costs the WyG&F almost $2 million a year, and the feds chip in $300,000. All the Wy money comes directly from licnese sales, hunters, fisherman, and trappers.

MN. WIS. Mich. have had wolves for 40 years and still no hunting or seaons, so I can't see one ever happening here.

Here is my chioce for control!
http://www.ratpack38.com/mini/gatlinggun.wmv

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

As of last summer Idaho had over 400 wolves alone in central Idaho. Now if you figure out using the recomended stat offered to us by our own Fish and Game/Wildlife Service, that a single wolf will kill 1.5 elk per week (averaged over a year basis) and there are 400 wolves in central, middle Idaho that comes to over 600 elk a week, 2,400 elk a month and 28,800 elk killed each year by these stupid dogs. With those figures its not hard to figure out why an area that was once good can be wiped out if the wolves hang around for awhile. I too am in the catagory of finding a new area because the wolves have almost wiped out the majority of elk from my honey hole. I have hunted the Lemhi Zone (just south of Salmon Idaho on the map) for years, and there were lots and lots of elk but now the wolves have taken care of that. As far as why others introduced them well they (wolves) are a anti hunters best friend. Its true that many more people do deer hunt than elk hunt but if you look at the money people spend on elk hunting. And I don't know of hardly any deer hunters even back east who don't dream of one day hunting elk at west. So if the wolves take away the elk population to unhuntable numbers, the anti hunters have just won a piece of the battle to end all hunting. Its a smart move on their part, and the fact the about half of all hunters who don't know the real truth don't realy have much concern, and think that those of us who don't like the wolves (for very good reason) just hate them to hate them so to speak. An example is even in the RMEF, in the past few years it has been devided, about half the the members support the wolves and half don't. So the RMEF doesn't have a offical say in it. I think that is a huge mistake. Also our own Local Fish&Game don't always tell the truth because they don't loose the sale of any more elk tags. 10 years ago getting a out of state elk tag in Idaho was very hard, but now there are so many left over tags that we as residents can buy them up paying out of state fees. Even with that new rule there are still many elk tags left over at the end of the year. The reason is because the wolves have hurt our best elk heards in the state of Idaho. Many outfitters have closed shop because who wants to pay for a guided hunt for only a small chance at maybe only seeing an elk let alone seeing a big bull or getting a shot at any bull. I know this sounds harsh and biased but its the truth, and anyone who cares about elk and elk hunting should take a stand and be heard. Out ranchers have just won a victory to now be able to shoot them, now if we hunters can shoot them to keep them in check that would be a major step in the right direction.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

When they are that outa hand just use the 3 "S's".....shoot, shovel, shut up haha;)

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

If you have ever owned livestock you would never want to see wolves come to a stable number of population. If your an elk hunter you would not want to see them either. If you were walking in the woods and ran into three hungry wolves you better be fast and accurate. Wolves are coming to Colorado whether we want them or not. DOW has a hidden policy if they hint around about a topic or publish it in the paper once or twice. YOu can be sure plans are already set to re-introduce the wolves to colorado.

Were wolves in Colorado before? Sure they were. Cattlemen, trappers, and sheepherders took care of the problem the first time. But being restricted in taking wolves they will come back in a frenzy and become a huge problem in Colorado.

Get ready because they are already here. They've talked about it here for two years seriously. And the female wolf hit on I-70 was a transplant. I'd bet my life on that one because that is how they re-introduced the Lynx. They did it in secret and then told the state they did it.


Good thing i'm always packing.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

It is not the wolf that is the problem.

It IS the people that are managing them and their management methods. Or lack their of.

Just like the ranchers before us that killed them off if you do the same and keep killing them off there will always be some one or some group that will successfully loby to bring them back.

Humans and wolves can live together just fine if the humans quit being PC and manage them properly.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I agree with BigBulls. Wolves are just another predator but the management (which in this case is none at all) is the MAJOR problem here. I believe that wolves HAVE depleted elk herds and hunting opportunities in some areas. I believe this to be wrong. When it first started I was all for wolf re-introduction. The reasons why I was for it have not changed. But I had no idea the government was going to be this neglegiant in handling the re-intro process. This is one of the most rediculous management plans I have ever seen.

It's real sad too because I for one always believed man, and other wildlife could live with the wolf. I believe that had the re-intro been been conducted with much more intellegence many out there would have always seen we could live with the wolf and I think overall support would have eventually been won. But with the way it's been done from day one until now, those who were on the fence are almost all now against the whole thing.

In my opinion is was a good idea but HORRIBLE execution.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Ahhhhhhhhh, probably worth some passing commentary.....

A Line by Denzel Washington from "I, Robot", seems appropriate:
"Somehow the words, 'I told you so', just don't seem to cut it!"
(Just about the time they realized they were in "deep do-do") ;):D:D:D:D

IMHO, from the viewpoint of pragmatic hunters or stockmen, the USFW could not pour pee out a boot with the directions stamped on the heel.[:'(][:'(]

Fifteen years from now, when the damage has been mostly wrought, it will be interesting to see how the "polling numbers" on a hunting web site like this one will go:

Vote for your choice:
*** 15 more years of the same (BTW, 15 years from now you may not want to believe the newest line of gov't BS then either),
OR
*** Let's go back to "1993 status" and spend the next 15 years doing what our grand daddies did and "get this mess cleaned up."

BTW, assuming the USFW is going to do something "reasonable" by "hunter standards" is wishful thinking and naive. I might add that the USFW IS doing an absolutely wonderful job by greenie, treehugger, PETA standards.... kinda make you wonder who is going to "win" that one in the long pull. [:o][:o]

BTW, the courts just denied the proposed "delisting of the grey wolf" last week I believe, in a suit filed by guess who?

My, my, not like we couldn't see that one coming..... Looks like those clever wildlife biologists, PhD's, and their grad assistants with their "statistically sound science" are going to be putting in even more overtime before any de-listing gets done (maybe a 15 year running battle between the statistians?). In the mean time, what the heck happened to the elk herds? Oh, I forgot, I'm just a lay person --- no statistical study --- just like all the other lay folks, don't really know what we see.

Good luck with getting this genie back into the bottle!
=================

BTW, Alsatan, in RE to your Q: I don't know right where you're hunting and the current impact in that area, your odds may be fair for this year, but if you go then take lots of pictures (might want to hire a videographer) so you can show your kids "how it was back in the good old days."

EKM

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I hate the wolves. From what I have seen recently the tide is starting to turn. The head of the wolf recovery program was interviewed in todays paper. I beleive that he has been on both sides of the fence, and has received threats of bodily harm from both as he states. It doesn't help the damage that has already done however there is a soon to be delisting of the wolves. When this happens control will turn over to the states. In my opinion it is like turning over a kid with crappy diapers to a baby sitter. The baby sitter starts with a mess on her hands. But if the babysitter is a good one, things get cleaned up pretty quick. If the wolves are going to be there then so be it. But I hope the state I live in can make speedy work of cleaning up the crap.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

They are a problem, at least the three my son left behind at my place are. Whenever I try to go huntin' they come along. I am too slow to outrun them. If I do manage to shoot somethin', I am too feeble to take it from them. I don't hate 'em though, I thought they were kinda neat when they were pups.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I don't like hate! I like the word detest! Yes, I detest the feds, and the wolves. No good has came of what they have done.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Not so fast....it's still a little early to claim your victory on this. EKM you are an intellegent guy but throughout this whole process I've never seen you be able to "see" that there are two aspects of the wolf re-intro.

First you have the "is the wolf a super predator that kills and eats everything but the clouds in the sky debate?" This is where many of us disagree and probably will until 15 years has passed with sound managment and are left with the results.

The second is the political aspect of wolves. I, and many here included, have never agreed with how the government has handled them. If you go back and read old posts we are not saying anything now we didn't say then. When the wolf debate started. We predicted, very accurately mind you, that if wolf managment was not passed on to the states this would start happening. I still feel very strongly that we and other wildlife can coexist just fine with the wolf. But we and other wildlife cannot coexist with Federal wolf management policy. But the thing is....even those of us for wolf re-intro have been saying this all along.

So you are a lot premature to say, "I told you so."

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

And when you go and do this again. I will be right there to say I told you so.


So we can all get over this wolf thing. They will be here so you may as well get use to it and find a way to live with them. Talk to your represenatives, congressmen, etc... and tell tham that the wolf needs to be delisted and managed by the states division of wildlife. There needs to be a hunting season on wolves just like there are other game animals. As we humans take more and more land from wildlife the animals need to be managed better and better for the good of all of us.

So quit picking a fight with the wolves cause they are just an animal that is following its instincts and get on the asses of the people in charge of the management of them.


So quit whining about it and start up a group to fight PETA. PETA started from a small group and look at them now. They are the biggest and most well known animal rights group in the world.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Big and Rather,

Sorry guys but the "hopeful team" is down 21-0 just before the half! Whoops! The "bad guys" just completed a hail mary pass with their court victory (read Judicial Branch) and just blocked the Executive Branch from remedying anything by de-listing those cute, brave, noble critters for some time to come. If you are counting on the Legislative Branch where majority face re-election every 2 years to "be a man" and dive into this political ballywick, then "Uh Huh". 28-0 at the half.

Good luck during half time in regard to getting this "wolf control train back on the tracks" (was it EVER on the tracks post 1993?)

For those of you who were counting on the much rumored, often promised, soon-to-happen, transfer of power to the states and the delisting of the grey wolf, here is a recap of that last touch down before halftime:

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda only goes so far. It better be a damn good 3rd quarter as the "die" is nearly cast on the wolf thing.

I guess on the bright side it is a big world and not everywhere are they as "goody two shoes" to the point of excess about wildlife as they are here in the USA. We have wonderful personal and economic freedoms though, gotta love that part.... wildlife pragmatism vs. PC BS in the USA kinda bites a bit though.
Unfortuantely, I'm betting that hunting outside the USA is not an option for most folks.

Good Day,
EKM

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

This is a rancher, real life person, in a real world. About 55 miles from where I live. Her letter to the editor.

Meeteese wolves don't fear humans





Editor:

I would like to comment on something that Ed Bangs said during the most recent incidents with the wolves out of Meeteetse: "Any human activity will scare wolves off their prey; otherwise they would have eaten the whole horse."

I live and work on a ranch in this area where we have had seven confirmed wolf kills, and none of the animals were eaten. Two of the animals were killed in fields directly behind my house; all of the others were killed in mountainous pastures with no human activity. In one incident, the wolves killed four full-grown cattle in an area of 50 feet. Since no one is around the area to scare them off, please explain to me why they weren't eaten. If wolves are so scared of humans, how come they walk up to my husband while he is dragging meadows and stare at him, why do they come up to us 100 yards or less when we are calving, why do they come up to our yard fence and walk through the ranch when we are present, why did they have their pups directly above where the loggers are cutting?

I would also like to tell you that wolves don't kill only when they are hungry. Many times they will kill animals to show their young howl, yet they don't eat them. If you would like to see this slaughter, head to the nearest ranch. If you can't get out of your office to see this, then look back at the seminar that was put on in 1994 at the Meeteetse gymnasium. At that program were pictures of a considerable amount of deer in Canada that were slaughtered by wolves. None were eaten; the only thing eaten on some were the fetuses out of the pregnant doe.

I would also like to correct another comment that you used in an earlier article. This is in regards to the "Black Widow." You seem to think that if you kill her off that the other wolves will not know how to kill cattle/sheep. Wolves instinctively know how to kill and refine their skills by observing the older wolves. They don't decipher between an elk and a cow. It is food, mostly a sport, and it is killed in the exact same way. We have watched them kill elk and their young the same way that they have our cattle.

Maybe these words will help you to understand the animal instead of reading junk out of a book that is inaccurate.

KARLA GITLITZ, Meeteetse

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Wolves are a problem.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Thanks Randy L. Our only hope is partnering with ranchers. Not nearly enough people care about hunting. Ranching gets the political and public ear here.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

That was Will Smith, not Denzel Washington.

And now, back to the never ending discussion on wolves...

The wolf wasn't slated for delisting, it was being downgraded from endangered to threatened.

By all appearances, the USFWS was using some bad science to make its move and got its hand slapped. There have been benefits from the reintroduction as well as negative impacts. Bigbulls and Ratherbehuntin have a valid point, that the management can be improved. Hopefully the states will get that soon. They're certainly more responsive to local interests, including hunting. What federal program doesn't have management issues? What state program is perfect?

Let the ranchers take out the wolves that threaten their livestock. However, some hunters seem to have an opinion that we should wipe out anything that competes for their prize. You read the wolf discussion, read deer hunter posts on killing mountain lions because they might reduce the deer on his lease, same thing with coyotes. Some anglers import the fish they want, knocking out the local variety. I'd have to admit that collectively, left to our own devices, we can be pretty terrible managers of our environment. No wonder we need to have the government step in.

I'm not trying to make the case that hunters shouldn't get a share. However I don't think that the arguement that there are less elk to hunt is gonna be sufficient reason to revert back to the "good old days" of pre-introduction. We need to get to a point where wolves can be managed like coyotes and mountain lions. Right now too many in the opposing camps have their skirmish lines set up and snipe at each other rather than look for a solution.

An interesting question could be, if the reintroduction of the wolf is the right thing to do, why don't they reintroduce them in New York, Pennsylvania, etc.? Deer overbrowsing is a problem there as well: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6835501/

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Minor Detail.

EKM

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Doesn't really address any of the thoughts in my post. What it does bring up is noted, third quote box, 2nd and final paragraphs. My statement supporting ranchers right to shoot the wolves is in support of the USFWS policy. I went on to say: "By all appearances, the USFWS was using some bad science to make its move and got its hand slapped." The gist of it is that I would like to see the USFWS fix the problems with its rules and once again give the ranchers the right to shoot wolves threatening their livestock.

You'll note that the judge ruled that the USFWS had improperly combined areas were the wolves were doing well with areas with areas that they have not (yet?) recovered. Sort of like basing the highway budget for the state on the traffic patterns and condition of the roads in one city. By the judges reasoning cited in the article, if the USFWS had not created such a huge area and instead treated Montana's situation as more unique, the ranchers would still enjoy that right today. Not that the group on the other side of the firing line wouldn't have challenged it anyway.

The article you cited didn't provide some of the details contained in my quote. I wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't for that. Mine was an excerpt from ABCnews.com. I'm curious where your quote originated. It struck me as slanted in favor of the ruling (versus simply reporting on it). First, was the sentence portion "...attempted to de-list the species to the mere ‘threatened’ category." (emphasis added) It goes on to note dramatic weakening and jeapordization of the recovery while providing no opposing discussion. I snipped parts of my citation out as well, so perhaps the entire peice wasn't as slanted as the quoted portion might indicate.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I will not shoot a wolf with anybody around, even a trusted hunting buddy. He tells just one guy, who says not to tell anyone, but I know of a guy who . . . you know how it goes.

Reason to hunt alone.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

S.S.S.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Wuff,


28-0 and it's "battling article annotations" at half time?


The "wolf-huggers" are happy about winning regardless which article they read --- they won a biggie.

EKM

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

;)

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Where's the battle? Simply curious where your's originated as the percieved slant caught my attention. I don't think I was contradicting you, simply expanding on the information you had provided. Wait, I did note that you were confusing Will Smith and Denzel Washington. :D:D:D

Again, rather than take a single sentence out of context, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on any of the points of my post, which is essentially that the wolves need to be better managed so that hunting opportunities remain available. Again, is the fact that hunters don't see as many elk as they used to sufficient justification for wiping the wolf out of the lower 48? If you believe that reintroduction is righting a wrong, then with the reduced elk herds we're simply no longer seeing the bounty, the "ill-gotten gains", of that wrong.

Keep in mind that I'm saying that they should be managed, their numbers kept in check. But they are back, and we'll have to learn to live with them.

Bigbulls has a good point re: stop whining. "28-0" and we're sniping at posts? How many have written letters to their representative, congressman, and president? How many have followed that up with letters to the USFWS, RMEF, state representatives, etc.? Make your voice heard in a reasoned, polite manner, cite your concern, the impact that you see on your states hunting opportunities, economy, etc. Maybe it won't change anything, but if you don't do anything other than post here it certainly won't change.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

The wolves have been reintroduced into the lower 48 states . . . but why was this done? What is the theory, as it were, behind this? Wolves are not threatened as a species -- plenty of wolves in Alaska and Canada, right? I'm guessing the idea was -- "Well, wolves once roamed the lower 48. It was unjust, it was imprudent, it was arrogant of our species to dispatch these animals from the lower 48." I'm wondering what the rationale was. There are a lot of things that aren't what they were before man increased in numbers and started dominating nature more aggressively with technology -- the plow, the bulldozer, the concrete truck, the rifle, etc. I'm assuming we aren't going to try to reverse all of this and return to our stone-age level of technology. Are wolves needed as a natural check on populations of some animals, as birds may be necessary to reduce the number of insects? If they have been reintroduced just because they look cuddly and because of the movie White Fang, this kind of wishy-washy thought can be contended with, can't it?

Is the policy on wolf reintroduction underpinned by the endangered species act, and if so how? I'm curious about this. Frankly, I don't even understand the idea of reintroducing wolves with the provision that they be controlled and kept in check. This is like reintroducing smallpox with the provision that we try to limit the damages caused thereby.

I admit to being pretty clueless about this issue, so maybe this background is known and obvious to most people.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Alsatan,

Al, that is W-A-Y too much common sense for this discussion. You added the proviso "I admit to being pretty clueless...." I don't think you are clueless at all; just way ahead of most the pack (no pun intended).

IMHO, the wolf reintroduction folks are effectively "chopping a hole in the bottom of the big game hunting life boat" and my biggest surprise has been the number of hunters cheering them on.

In answer to your question as to "why" it was concluded that wolf re-introduction was a good idea, I'm sure you're gonna hear some good ones. Underneath the scientific glitz and rationale lies an underlying sentiment (that you touched on) of a large portion of the American public residing in their "lands far, far away"....
** Why those little woolfies are sooo cute!
** Those woolfie burning yellow eyes are just sooo cool!
** That woolfie howl is just sooo neat!
** Last but not least, most Americans too damn cheap to drive to Canada to get a "woolfie fix" so they want them moved closer, just so long as it is not in THEIR back yard!

A classic case of falling in love with a dream without considering (or even caring about) the "on the ground" realities.

Wolves and Smallpox, now it is going to get really good as someone explains how we need smallpox to lead a complete and environmentally balanced life!

Interestingly some big game hunters STILL don't realize they are sliding into deep do-do!

"Somehow, I told you so just doesn't cut it!"
-- Famous Black Guy Action Hero

Good Luck With That.....
EKM

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

While the wolf is not in danger of becoming extinct anymore, the Endangers Species Act has two provisions for listing a species as "endangered":

1. A species is in danger of actual extinction.

2. A species can be placed on the ESA if it has lost a considerable amount of its former territory.

The second of these provisions applies to the wolf. However, those opposed to reintroduction make the arguement that although the wolf has lost some of its former range, the wolf population in the areas where it is still present is high enough for them to be taken off the ESA list. Practically speaking, they can't be everywhere they once were, so how do you rationalize singling out specific areas for reintroduction?

I believe that the concept is: Wolves, like all wildlife have a right to exist in a wild state, this right is no way related to their known value to mankind, it derives from the right of all living creatures to co-exist with man as part of the natural ecosystems. That's creatures, not organisms. Comparing the wolf to small pox is a macro vs micro logical fallicy. This is the same sort of thinking that caused USFWS to get its hands slapped in the court ruling cited in earlier posts. And, unless you're trying to build a super-race, there's little value in letting people die of smallpox. However, reasonable people do disgree on the benefits to nature of the wolf's reintroduction.

Some benefits have been realized. From what I've read it sounds as if some of these were not forecast, or weren't thought to be as great as they have been. One is a reduction in over-browsing. Another is the benefit to other parts of the ecosystem that are secondary predators/scavengers that finish off the carcass. Another is the reduction in the coyote population. The over-population of coyotes adversely impacted the populations of the medium sized predators that couldn't compete with the coyotes.

There are also drawbacks. As mentioned, wolves have a negative impact on hunting. While recovery programs are implemented in National Parks where hunting is not allowed, both the herds and wolves don't stay just in the park Wolves will reduce these animal numbers, meaning there would be fewer animals for hunting and game purposes. Kinda goes to my question - is it justified to eliminate the wolf so that we have better hunting opportunities? My personal view is that I can't rationalize that kind of action.

On the "bright" side, maybe someone gets attacked by a wolf and we'll get a "Bad News X6" post. :D:D:D

There's also the loss of livestock. But livestock losses to wolves are dwarfed by losses to other factors. 1995 the USDA reported that 4.2 million head of cattle died due to weather, disease, theft, or poison. The same report listed 117,400 as dying from the result of predator attacks; the vast majority of which were coyotes. In the Rocky Mountain region between 1997-1999, sheep deaths due to wolves made up .01 percent (1 in 10,000) of total sheep losses, and cattle deaths attributed to wolves accounted for .03 percent (3 in 10,000) of all cattle losses. Those numbers are no consolation when wolves attack your herd, but they put the matter in some perspective.

Please note, I found those figures on the web. The LA Times reported today that, in a survey of USFWS scientists, 20% reported being pressured to change data to achieve a political goal. Add that to all the other ways numbers can be twisted. However, I hope that they're good enough to use for the purposes of a friendly discussion.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

The difference now as opposed to when wolves and wildlife coexisted with out problems are numerous. The wolves were introduced, not naturally occuring, no control of the wolves as yet. USF&W is waffleing on control. Very limited control in Montana and Idaho, if your livestock or pets are being attacked and thats it. Wyoming, no control because Wyoming submitted thier plan along with Id, and Mt. The Wy plan calls for all wolves out of Rockefeller Park and Yellowstone to be classified as preditors, in the Parks they are trophy game. We all know in the Parks they will never be hunted, no hunting is allowed in those parks. Basically out of the Park they are fair game, anything goes except, poison or aireal gunning. The USF&W did not like this so they denied WY delisting. The state of Wyoming, a group of hunters, two county commisions, and a livestock group, filed suit against the USF&W just recently to prove that the USF&W lied and denied Wy's plan on unsound scientific evidence. Right now it is a political ploy by the feds.

Don't let anyone BS you, the Canadian Grey wolf is doing fine and VERY well in Wy. No one can even agree on a total count. USF&W say 170 wolves in WY. G&F estimates over 500. Mike Jemenez, USF&W guru, stated to the news last week that the wolf population has leveld off in Wy, with a 6% growth rate. 6% is a pretty good growth rate, I wouldn't call that leveling off. Where as, the elk population is at less than 1% growth in the same area. There are so many reports around the state I have to agree with the G&F. I can tell you documented, published stories one after the other of wolf sighintgs around the state of Wy. The truth is big game is suffering, drought, loss of habitat, and preditors. Wolves and Grizzlys. A combination of all of the above has drasticly reduced elk numbers in some areas to pre 70 levels. Simple math, wolves eat elk, there are around 500. How much meat can 500 wolves eat? LOTS AND LOTS! What do you think? Conservatively! 20 elk a day? Times 365 days a year! Not to mention the ones that are stressed from harasment by being chased by wolves, only to wonder off and die or abort thier calves. This has also happend on almost every winter feed ground in WY. Read the above news article.

It is a very controversial and emotional situation. I am not against having wolves here, I just feel if they come out of Yellowstone then they are fair game. If a season was opend tomorrow and no restrictions, excluding poison and aireal gunning, you wuold not kill all the wolves in Wy. They will not be wiped out, or eradicated. How many people on this forum has spent time in wolf country and even seen a wolf?? I have hunted in 5 Canadian provinces a total of 7 times, a wolf tag in my pocket each time and I seen one wolf in all the trips I made. Here in Wy, I see tracks every time I go to where I elk hunt, I have seen wolves one time, they just stand there and watch you, no fear. And I am seeing fewer and fewer elk. As is most outfitters and hunters in Northwest Wy.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

The impact on elk in NW Wyoming is becoming severe as is the decline in moose populations. The moose areas here were eliminated, combined, and quotas reduced to 1/4th of previous quotas. Why? Preditors, wolves and bears.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

By WHITNEY ROYSTER
Star-Tribune environmental reporter Monday, January 17, 2005




JACKSON -- Sure, you can talk about the economic implications of wolf reintroduction. Some people have lost money, others have made some.

But for Jon Robinette, the issue is much deeper.

"It changed our whole lifestyle," said Robinette, general manager of the Diamond G Ranch in the DuNoir Valley northwest of Dubois. "Instead of being able to go to bed and sleep, we have to get up and check for wolves."

Robinette has had his run-ins with wolves. He has lost six dogs since wolf reintroduction. He has had dogs killed out the back door. He has had horses killed in corrals and in pastures. He has lost cattle.

Still, Robinette, who says he was not in favor of reintroduction but recognizes that ways have to be found to live with wolves, said pinning a number to his losses is problematic.

"There's a whole scenario here, not just how much money did you lose," he said.

He has hired additional riders to look out for animals killed -- and to protect the evidence to determine what happened. That process, too, can take up to 12 hours, Robinette said, and the riders cost about $4,000 a month, for five months.

Then there's the impact to the cattle: Weights go down if cattle are stressed or being moved a lot. Reproduction rates might go down. Calves killed are a loss of about $1,000.

Before 1997, Robinette said the most cattle he lost was 22. In 1997, 61 calves were dead or missing. In 1998, 56 were lost; in 1999, he lost 53. Last year, there were nine confirmed wolf kills and 22 missing calves -- and that's just the number above those he knew wolves had nothing to do with.

While Robinette has lost money from wolves, others, like Bob Richard, might have made some.

Richard is the owner of Grub Steak Expeditions out of Cody, a custom sightseeing tour business.

Although Richard said an absence of wolves "would not change my business one iota," he does receive requests from people to see wolves.

"Last year we saw over 45 different wolves," he said. He takes clients to Yellowstone and into the Shoshone National Forest. Costs are about $375 for a full-day tour for two adults.

Last year, he said out of 1,900 clients, "a couple of hundred" wanted to see wolves. For the most part, people prefer bears or geysers, he said.

Have wolves helped his business?

"It has contributed to interesting private tours," he said. "Wolves were reintroduced, and I think we're going to see a very rough road ahead for the wolves over the next couple of years."

And there are people such as Rick Hoeninghausen, director of sales and marketing for Xanterra Parks and Resorts, which operates in Yellowstone National Park.

"There's definitely evidence that it has been helpful," he said of wolf reintroduction.

The company has offered wolf-watching packages, which has boosted winter tourism rates. More offerings in spring and fall have boosted sales as well.

Anecdotally, Hoeninghausen said he has seen a lot of people in turnouts on the road to Lamar Valley with spotting scopes, and more traffic on the road. Lamar Valley is a hot spot for wolves.

"From a business perspective, from a park experience perspective, I can definitely see that it has brought a positive impact," he said.

Gene Bryan, executive director of the Cody Chamber of Commerce, said wolves have been a "mixed bag" for businesses in Park County.

"There is an element here that supports wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park but is very concerned about the impacts the wolves are having outside the park, i.e. on the traditional livestock industries related to cattle and sheep production and especially the impacts they are having on wild game populations -- elk, deer, bighorn sheep, moose -- and the resultant impacts on the outfitter industry and resident-non-resident hunting," he said.

Still, University of Montana economist John Duffield conducted studies to cast wolf reintroduction in an economic light, according to Associated Press reports. He asked people how much they would be willing to contribute to a fund supporting reintroduction.

Then, Duffield factored in the projected costs of reintroduction (opportunities lost to recreational hunters, livestock lost to predation, costs of wolf management). His analysis showed benefits outweighing costs by $6 million to $8 million.

Increased Yellowstone visitation because of wolves is expected to bring in up to $23 million, he said.

Managing wolves

Of course, there's a cost to the public for wolf management.

Wolf recovery coordinator Ed Bangs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that agency spends about $200,000 each year for wolf management in Wyoming, compared with about $300,000 in Montana and even more in Idaho.

At the same time, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department last year spent just under $119,000 to manage the gray wolf in Wyoming, even though the state doesn't have jurisdiction over the animals.

In 2000, Game and Fish spent about $11,000 on wolf management. That figure dropped to $6,700 in 2001 but rose to $37,100 in 2002, according to Game and Fish data.

Wolf management costs rose dramatically in 2003 to about $506,000. Agency fiscal officers said most of the cost increase was attributed to the development in 2003 of a wolf management plan for Wyoming.

The agency's final management plan estimated the costs of a Game and Fish-managed wolf program after delisting would be about $395,000 per year. But Game and Fish directors later revised that estimate and now believe wolf management costs will approach $1 million annually after delisting.

They said the potential cost of the management program will depend on the complexity of the monitoring program and the amount of land occupied by wolves.

Defenders of Wildlife pays ranchers compensation for confirmed wolf kills.

In Wyoming, Defenders paid $28,096 in 2004, compared with $10,803 in 2003. In 2002, payment totaled $21,506 in Wyoming, and payments were about $14,000 in 2000 and 2001.

The group has paid out $144,000 to ranchers in wolf country around Yellowstone since 1995.

But all that talk of money means nothing to Robinette. Even though the ranch manager has seen his death losses skyrocket from 1.5 percent to about 8 percent a year after reintroduction, he still favors listing the animal as trophy game.

"Then you can manage the packs that are not acceptable," he said. With predator status for wolves, there is no compensation program. Livestock killed because of trophy game predation allows ranchers to receive compensation. The Legislature would have to change the rule to allow predator kills to be eligible for compensation, he said, and that means skunks, coyotes and a host of others would be on the list.

"The sooner we get the animals delisted, the sooner we can manage them," he said. "Wildlife is going to be helped, agriculture will be helped. It's not working the way it's going. I'm not anti or pro -- I just live with it."

Star-Tribune reporter Jeff Gearino contributed to this report.

Environmental reporter Whitney Royster can be reached at (307) 734-0260 or at [email protected].

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Bottom line, no good has or will come of the illegally introduced Canadian Grey wolf. We have to live with them, the state of Wy is suing the USF&W, for whatever good that will do. There are areas of Wyoming where you will look long and hard to even see an elk when in the past you could at least see elk and even hunt them.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I live in central Colorado. Back this summer there was a wolf killed on I-70 About 40 minutes outside Denver. The family and me were coming back from shopping in the big city and saw it. I thought it was someones pet and my wife thought it was a wild wolf. The next day it was in the newspaper, it was a wild wolf. The paper said it was roaming looking for a mate, and that it came from Yellowstone. I am sure there is habitat enough for wolves to rehabitate CO. It doesnt soundlike wolves are going to help anybodies hunting success either.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

You mean that ALL species are not necessary for a bio-diversified existance? I'll bet the folks keepin score of extinct species has counted smallpox as on that evil ol' mankind has thoughlessly destroyed. [:-]

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Wolves have their place in the environment......pure and simple truth. Ranchers, and many quite simply cannot see the truth in that fact. And yes, I would hunt them if they became a problem....it is however us/man that is the creator of the issues most have with Wolves. Wolves have their place....