This is an article in the Outdoor life mag. by Jim Zumbo

The Irma Hotel in Cody, Wyoming, is the on the list of national historic places. Built in 1903 by Buffalo Bill for his daughter Irma, it's a hunter's mecca. At any given time in the fall, sportsmen from around the world drink and dine there. But if you're a supporter of wolves in the greater Yellowstone area, keep it to youself when visiting the Irma or places like it.
I know a nonresident hunter who didnt, and he came close to getting into a fistgight with an angry outfitter. And that wasnt an isolated incident. That's just the way it goes in towns like Cody that are close to Yellowstone.

Wolves seems to cause profound personality changes in otherwise laid-back, shy, gentle people. That's because of the big canine's ability to ravage game population, as wel as its hunting methods. There arent many predators in North America that kill their prey with the violence that wolves do. Before I describe it, let me say that you will seldom see a wolf attack on TV, because a wolf kill, unlike that of the lion or leopard, is normally not quick and humane."

When wolves hunt, they do so by sight. They dont scent -trail an animal. When they spot their prey, they give chase. It can be a very long pursuit, or a very short one, depending on the terrain, snow depth, size of the pack, ability of the prey to fight and other factors. The kill is not pretty. Wolf experts describe how typically one or more wolves will lunge at the flanks of the beleaqured animal with their powerful jaws, biting and slashing to shear away the hide and rip out of organs and cause severe blood loss. At the same time, another wolf will commonly jump up and latch onto the victim's nose with its teeth, especially when the pack is hunting a heavy animal like a moose. With a 150 pound animal holding on its nose and several others tearing at its side, the victim is history. The wolves continue to eviscerate the animal and gobble up the emerging entrials until it finally dies. This might take hours or even days--but rarely minutes.

So, knowing this scenario occurs countless times every day in wolf counry, how can we possibly accept wolf reintroduction in the west? I think most of us understand that in nature not many animals die gently. Violence is common when predators are doing the killing, but there is alo long-term pain and suffering due to disease, parasites and starvation, Wolfs are simply part of the natural equation of life and death. If we can agree to that, let's eliminate the emotion and look at wolves from the standpoint of the impact they have on their prey, which happens to include the animals that we like to hunt. Do we really want to share our elk, deer, and moose with wolves? And will we ever have a chance to hunt wolves? Are we selfish, as some claim, wanting the elk, moose and other animals only for ourselfs?

Living in Cody as i do, my prespective on wolves is different from that of someone who doesnt live here. I worry about the local elk and the moose, and i am concerned when i see a serious absence of moose where i've seen plently of them before, and when i see alarmingly few elk calves as compared to before the wolves arrived. I am not happy when wildlife agencies reduce elk tags, because wolves are taking so many of the surplus elk that we've been hunting for years. Call if greed if you will, but that's my opinion. Many biologists tell that the low elk numbers are due to the throught, other habitat problems and increased numbers of grizzlies, but they seem to scoff at the notion that wolves are a singificant mortality factor. I feel sorry for my rancher neighbor whose dog was killed by two woles. He was unable to defend his pet because would have faced a still fine and a possible jail term. I'm frustrated that wolves have successfully exceeded the highest expections of the peopl that reintroduced them, but we still cant manage them.

When It Began

In my area, it all started in 1995, when 14 wolves were trapped in Alberta, Canada, and released in Yellowstone National Park by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The following year, 17 wolves from British Columbia were added. As predicted, some of the wolves left Yellowstone quickly, and their numbers in and outside the park grew rapidly. In 1997, there were 87 wolves. There were 112 wolves in 1998, 117 in 1999, 177 in 2000, 218 in 2002, and 272 in 2002. Not only are their numbers growing, but the wolves are spreading at an incredible rate. Last year for example, a collared wolf from Yellowstone was caught by a coyote trapper in Utah. The animal traveled some 220 miles from where it was initially released. Wildlife agents transferred the wolf back to Wyoming, where it rejoined its orignal pack. Every year, wolves are showing up in new areas, establishing new packs.
That is why i believe we need to manage wolves as soon as possble. But let's not mince words. Management means killong some to keep their numbers at acceptable levels. When, where and how many to kill are the big questions.

Solving The Issue

To some people, managment isn't an option. They want all the wolves killed. And then there are those at the other extreme who want to let wolves multiply unchecked and spread far and wide. Others, like me, say the solution lies somewhere in the middle. We want wolves managed in such a way that their numbers can be controlled, ensuring that big-game populations won't suffer. For the record, I never wanted wolves in the first place, nor did the game departments of three Western states involved in the recovery effect (Wyoming, Idaho and Montana). But now that the wolves are established, we must deal with them in a manner acceptable to the public, because the public, through litigation and the ballot-box, has the final say.
Killing all the wolves will never happen. It's ludicrous to think it will. Though I dont cound myself among them, many Americans-and not just activist anti-hunters--are comfortable having wolves roam our Western forests. Even the most avid anti-wolf advocates concede that eradication isn't an option. "The wolves are here to stay." Says Arlene Hanson of Wapiti, Wyo. Hanson is the leader of the No-wolf Option Committee and put up a gallant fight to stop wolf reintroduction is the early 1990s. "I'm not happy with them, but now we must work to manage them." She adds

Delisting: When?

Wolves were introduced into Idaho at about the same time that they were brought to Yellowstone. In Northernwestern Montana, a third area that had been identifed for wolf recovery, wolves reestablished themselves by traveling across the border from Bristh Columbia. Over the last dozen years these animals have multiplied rapidly. When wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone and Idaho, the USFWS drew up a recovery plan that would allow wolves to be managed if certain condititions were met. The benchmark established by the USFWS was to have 30 breeding packs among the three states. Once the wolves had become that populous, their recovery would be consider succussful and the ycoudl be removed from the Endangered Species List.
But even though the objectives for recovery have been met, delisting is far from certain. First, there are logistical delays, such as the need fo officals to verfify the number of breeding packs. But the bigger problem is whether the USFWS and the three other states involved in the recovery effort can come to terms over how the wolves should be managed in the future. The relationship between the states and the feds over the wolves has not been a happy one. All three states initiallu opposed the reintroduction efforts. It took intervention on the part of Congress to get the program started. Idaho, in fact, was so set against wolf reintroduction that the state refused t osend any offical representation to the table. Instead it fell to members of the Nez Perce tribe to represent Idaho's wolves.
Despite the inital resistance to wolf reintroduction, however, all three states have produced and submitted plans for managing their wolves. Given the speed with which the wolves have been in creasing, the states really had no choice. If they refused to draw up plans, the wolves would have never been delisted and, therefore, would never be managed.
"We feel good about our managment plan." says Glenn Erickson of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "We finished it in September and the director signed it. We're happy with the plan's flexibility, which gives Montana hunters the opportunity to hunt wolves according to our guidelines. Once wolves are delisted, we'll come up with regulations as to how, where and when to hunt wolves."
Steve Nadeau, large carnivore coordinator for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, agrees. "Once wolves are delisted." he says "managment will be the responsibility of the state wildlife agency, and we'll work closely with the Nez Perce tribe. We hope to manage wolves as we currently manage black bears and mountain lions, allowing hunting with special 'controlled' permits." ..

"We hope the delisting process will proceed to schedule." says John Emmerich of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. "We're ready to establish hunting regulations on wolves once we have managment responsiblity."
But Wyoming's plans is drawing fire from many corners including from the USFWS. Animal-rights groups and many conservations organizations are furious with it. Called a dual-designation plan, it states that wolves in Yellowstone National Park (92 percent in which is in Wyoming) and in some nearby whilderness areas will be designated "trophy class" animals. That designation means they may be hunted in keeping with well-defined managment objective (though the wolves would never be hunted in Yellowstone of course). This is the same policy proposed by Montana and Idaho. But Wyoming goes a step further. The second aspect is the ''predator'' designation. According to a new statue passed by the Wyoming legislature, any wolves seen on national forests outside wilderness areas, or on any other public or private lands, can be shot on sight, just as coyotes.

Ed Bangs, USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator, responded to this issue in a letter to Wyoming Game and Fish Director Brent Manning on July 2, 2003. In part, he said, "We urge Wyoming to reconsider having wolves listed as predatory animals anywhere in Wyoming. That designation may spoil our mutual delist the wolf population and maintain a recovered population. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has commented that she is also concern about the use of the predator designations is biologically sound, from a public relations aspect it's a ''disaster." Among other reasons critics are concerned that a pack can be protected one day if they're in a wilderness , but be shot on sight when they cross unto non-wilderness national forest land. Under that scenario, wolf numbers could be reduced to below levels required by the federal government. To add to the dilemma, Manning resigned in mid-Setpember, citing "family reasons." after having served less than a year. This leaves the Wyoming Game and Fish Department without strong direction from top.
There is obviously no clear, immediate solution. Wolf delisting and management could take years, but wildlife officals in all three states are optimistic, as is Bangs. As it stands now, an independent panel of 12 wolf experts has been chosen by the USFWS to examine the three managment plans submitted by the states. They are scheduled to report back to the USFWS by November 1 (after press time for this article), and the agency will review their conclusions. By Jan. 1 2004, the USFWS is suppose to make its own recommendations regarding wolf mangemnt. This will be recorded in the Federal Resigter, making it available for public review and, of course, litigation. If all goes well with no serious pitfalls, wolves could be delisted by December 2004.

Many hope that day will never come. FOr many others, like me, it can come quickly enough. One thing is certain. Wolves arent going away. As this is a written, one or two could be headed in your direction right now. As a wolf biologist from Minnesota, where wolves increased from 1,500 to almost 3,000 in 10 years, told me a few years ago, "The only thing that will stop wolves from reaching Mexico is us." Get ready.


(a short story in this article)
A Wolf Attack in May 2002, veteran hunter and trapper Randy Blackburn was looking for shed elk antlers 10 miles from Yellowstone Park. He was riding a horse and leading a second one. Suddenly a spooked herd of 20 elk ran toward him; Blackburn figured a Grizzly was chasing them. Then he saw four wolves pursuing the elk. When the wolves spotted him, they attacked Bullet, his packhorse. Blackburn finally caught up to the horse 300 yards from where the attack began. It wasnt badly injured. Blackburn took pictures of the wounds and doctored the horse himself. Two USFWS agents separately investigated the incident. According to Blackburn, "One of them made me feel like I was lying, suggesting that the horse might have been kicked by another horse or wounded by a nail in my corral." The wolves Blackburn identifed had also been observed the day before the attack by one of the agents in the same area. This incidents points out the skepticism the feds demonstrate over wold complaints and the intimidations of the public of the strict laws pertaining to shooting problem wolves.


What is everyone's opinons on all this?

i think they sould get the muzzy. or maybe a expandable second thought a flinthead. they spend over a 100 years getting rid of them for good reason. just who is doing all the funding for these 24 hour a day 365 days a year killers.

I read the same article. And My first impression was Why the hell are they complaining about a few hundered of them. When in MN we have over 3000 of them and have been having problems with them for years.

(KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE)

i think that wyoming needs to get their act together so the states will have some population control measures at their disposal. the longer they are under federal control the more the population will grow un-checked. i think the states could give them trophy status for a couple years and when all the publicity has died down a bit sneak them over to the predator classification.

i was out on my dads place in MT earlier this year and found several sets of big dog like tracks and a half eaten 8pt whitetail ...kind of got me thinkin we may have some big headed coyotes in the area.

The wolves were here first. They have more right to be here than any domesticated livestock or person for that matter.

Yep

yea right. guys you got it wrong the dinasours were here before the wolves.maybe we should clone some dinos and let them roam out west.problem here is its 2004 WAKEUP. since they fund there wolf projects with my hunting money pittman robertson act that SUCKS.they proably don't hunt so it's a freebe to them to get rid of hunting with a mass introduction of predators won't need you anymore because the wolves will hunt 24 hours a day 365 days a year. if you d on't hunt areas that had wolves planted in you don't know what your talking about the game is just not there anymore.WE HAVE ALL THE PREDATORS WE NEED TO HANDLE GAME POPS. THERE CALLED HUNTERS

selway I don't know if your comment was aim at me too but what I don't understand why someone would write a article about a area out west that has a few hundred wolves when here in MN. we have well above that number and it is growing fast and have been causing problems for the farmers for awhile. And so far at best the fed. gov. gave the DNR some control but not enuff control to have a season on them and to be honest their could be one now,at least a lottery drawing one. maybe I don't understand that well because they were really never "planted" here,they have been always here,but still they get in a national mag? about a few hundred? Sorry but they will not get my sympathy.we been dealing with them for so long and I have seen them alot when I have been hunting and hearing them,I'm almost used to them by now.

(KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE)[8D]

no the comment was not pointed at you btpatriot02.we have them in wisconsin now. there was only to be a certain # of wolves will that has been pass up.the people that planted them here think they well stay where they put them daa.people that hunt coyotes with dogs will not hunt in a lot of areas because there dogs get eaten up by wolves.i know a lot of people don't run dogs but this is just another form of hunting that they like.if wolves are let to repopulate for themselves with no hunting of any kind there packs will grow till food runs out your game animals.next time you apply for that tag out west thats limited and you don't draw BECAUSE SOME WOLF ATE YOUR ANIMAL maybe you could just take that week of that you were going to hunt and watch some wolves eat your tag that you won't be getting next year. its 2004 hunting does a lot better control on game animals than a hungry pack of wolves. by the way i think i'm more important than a wolf.

btpatriot02
The reason Jim Zumbo wrote the article about the wolf population around Yellowstone National Park is because he lives in Cody Wyoming. He lives there & he is a wildlife biologist so this qualifies him best to write the article.
The problem with the wolf re-introduction is there are too many emotions that get in the way of good science. The whole reason they justified bringing the wolves into Yellowstone was based on a bogus report. They said there were too many elk in the yellowstone herd for the winter range to handle. This was proven to be a false study. Before it was proven the wolves were already planted in Yellowstone.
There are more like 600-wolves around Yellowstone, not just 200. Since there re-introduction Federal wildlife officers have killed a total of 200-problem wolves in Wyoming, Montana & Idaho.
The wolf predation problem is so bad around Yellowstone that within 5-years they will close elk, deer & moose hunting because there just will not be enough game left to support hunting.

Every hunter should follow the anti-hunting groups & hear what they are saying. Some anti-hunting groups know they can not stop hunting themselves. They decided the large predator was there best ally. If Wolves, Bears & Cougars bring down the game populations enough many hunters will loose interest. Then state game departments close off parts of the state to hunting. Then its too late & before long the entire state is closed to all hunting.