WOLVES
01-12-2005, 08:27 PM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,485
RE: WOLVES
Holy Cow Batman,
That guy (the crazy wolf lover) has issues. He is the kind that massages his own insecurities and feelings of self importance, while thinking that he is anonymous. Once his bluff would be called and he would have to face any crucial situation, as a man, where money and privelege would not be his guardians, he would fold like a cheap suit----he's probably insane under clinical definitions---probably a lot more out there just like him--SCARY--glad I've got a gun(grin)
hb
That guy (the crazy wolf lover) has issues. He is the kind that massages his own insecurities and feelings of self importance, while thinking that he is anonymous. Once his bluff would be called and he would have to face any crucial situation, as a man, where money and privelege would not be his guardians, he would fold like a cheap suit----he's probably insane under clinical definitions---probably a lot more out there just like him--SCARY--glad I've got a gun(grin)
hb
01-13-2005, 12:32 AM
#22
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Wy
Posts: 9,618
RE: WOLVES
quote:
They are NOW getting around to it, but this whole mess could have been avoided with some common sense science in the beginning. Something Tree Huggers and Anti's lack.
Don't leave out the illustrious US Fish and Wildlife, thier lies, contradictions, deceit, and warm and fuzzy administration.
They are NOW getting around to it, but this whole mess could have been avoided with some common sense science in the beginning. Something Tree Huggers and Anti's lack.
Don't leave out the illustrious US Fish and Wildlife, thier lies, contradictions, deceit, and warm and fuzzy administration.
dictating stupid rules& playing legal games with our resourses both state& federal.
I have chated& met a few of thses nasty whiney liberal peta, greenie,enviro mental elf terriots wackos in the past.....yes insane to say the least[:'(][:'(]
I seen wolfs before they brought them here- but that cant be right- without the feds? Maybe it was just a vision / swamp gas
01-15-2005, 10:30 AM
#24
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N.W. Wyoming
Posts: 57
RE: WOLVES
This may have already been posted as I am new to the site.
Gardiner late elk hunt to be cut
By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer HELENA -- The winter elk hunt in Gardiner will be cut from 1,180 hunters to 148 hunters, mirroring the steady downward spiral of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission decided here Thursday.
The hunt is likely to be discontinued altogether in the future, said Kurt Alt, FWP regional wildlife manager.
"It's probably going to go away," he said.
He cited the heavy density of wolves in and near the park, coupled with other predation, as a reason for cutting the hunt by more than 90 percent by January, 2006.
The northern Yellowstone herd hit a peak of about 19,000 animals in 1994. The next year, wolves were reintroduced and elk have been on a steady decline ever since.
"It's just one more mouth to feed," Alt said of the wolves. As recently as 2000, FWP offered more than 2,800 tags for the late hunt, which aimed to harvest mostly female elk that migrated out of Yellowstone National Park.
"We expect to observe less than 8,000 elk during this December's count,"Alt said. "Wolf lovers will have a hard time accepting that wolves are having such an impact."
He noted that in 1968, when the National Park Service stopped culling elk inside the park, there were about 4,000 elk there. By 1975, the year the late hunt commenced, the number had climbed to 12,000. In those years, there were no wolves, about half as many grizzly bears as there are today, and a lot fewer lions, Alt noted.
He said that, with the abundance of predators in and near the park, he fears that "one bad winter" could drop the elk herd to the 1968 level and the smaller herd would then face all those predators.
Critics of wolf reintroduction have pointed to reduced elk numbers for years and blamed wolves for them.
Now it turns out they're right, at least partly.
Recent studies in Yellowstone have shown that 70 percent of elk calves die from predators by the end of September of their first year.
Bears, both black and grizzly, account for about 60 percent of the calves that die in the first few weeks of their lives in the jaws of predators. After the calves become more mobile, wolves begin killing more of them and bears kill fewer, the studies show.
Springtime counts over the last three years have shown that between 12 and 14 calves per hundred cows have remained alive through the first year of their life.
A calf/cow ratio of about 20 is needed for a herd to sustain itself, Alt told the commission.
FWP commission chairman Dan Walker asked him if he expected to see that level reached within the next 10 years. Alt said "no."
The commission also approved Montana's statewide elk plan, which focuses on ways for people to harvest more elk, if necessary. Unlike the area just north of the park, most elk hunting districts in the state contain more elk than guidelines call for, leading to landowner complaints.
It's possible that some districts could be limited to antlerless elk only, in efforts to reduce populations.
Alt said he is not concerned about wolves causing similar big drops in elk numbers in other parts of the state.
It hasn't happened in northwest Montana, he said, or along the Rocky Mountain Front, where wolves have lived for years.
Wolves will continue to spread out from the park, but a significant number will get get in trouble with livestock and likely will be killed, Alt said.
"Whether they are listed (by the Endangered Species Act) or not, wolves will be managed on landscapes where people live and work," he said.
FWP is taking over many wolf management duties from the federal government.
Once delisted -- a step that could be years away -- Montana hopes to install limited hunting and trapping seasons for wolves, he said.
Copyright © 2003 Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. All rights reserved.
Gardiner late elk hunt to be cut
By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer HELENA -- The winter elk hunt in Gardiner will be cut from 1,180 hunters to 148 hunters, mirroring the steady downward spiral of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission decided here Thursday.
The hunt is likely to be discontinued altogether in the future, said Kurt Alt, FWP regional wildlife manager.
"It's probably going to go away," he said.
He cited the heavy density of wolves in and near the park, coupled with other predation, as a reason for cutting the hunt by more than 90 percent by January, 2006.
The northern Yellowstone herd hit a peak of about 19,000 animals in 1994. The next year, wolves were reintroduced and elk have been on a steady decline ever since.
"It's just one more mouth to feed," Alt said of the wolves. As recently as 2000, FWP offered more than 2,800 tags for the late hunt, which aimed to harvest mostly female elk that migrated out of Yellowstone National Park.
"We expect to observe less than 8,000 elk during this December's count,"Alt said. "Wolf lovers will have a hard time accepting that wolves are having such an impact."
He noted that in 1968, when the National Park Service stopped culling elk inside the park, there were about 4,000 elk there. By 1975, the year the late hunt commenced, the number had climbed to 12,000. In those years, there were no wolves, about half as many grizzly bears as there are today, and a lot fewer lions, Alt noted.
He said that, with the abundance of predators in and near the park, he fears that "one bad winter" could drop the elk herd to the 1968 level and the smaller herd would then face all those predators.
Critics of wolf reintroduction have pointed to reduced elk numbers for years and blamed wolves for them.
Now it turns out they're right, at least partly.
Recent studies in Yellowstone have shown that 70 percent of elk calves die from predators by the end of September of their first year.
Bears, both black and grizzly, account for about 60 percent of the calves that die in the first few weeks of their lives in the jaws of predators. After the calves become more mobile, wolves begin killing more of them and bears kill fewer, the studies show.
Springtime counts over the last three years have shown that between 12 and 14 calves per hundred cows have remained alive through the first year of their life.
A calf/cow ratio of about 20 is needed for a herd to sustain itself, Alt told the commission.
FWP commission chairman Dan Walker asked him if he expected to see that level reached within the next 10 years. Alt said "no."
The commission also approved Montana's statewide elk plan, which focuses on ways for people to harvest more elk, if necessary. Unlike the area just north of the park, most elk hunting districts in the state contain more elk than guidelines call for, leading to landowner complaints.
It's possible that some districts could be limited to antlerless elk only, in efforts to reduce populations.
Alt said he is not concerned about wolves causing similar big drops in elk numbers in other parts of the state.
It hasn't happened in northwest Montana, he said, or along the Rocky Mountain Front, where wolves have lived for years.
Wolves will continue to spread out from the park, but a significant number will get get in trouble with livestock and likely will be killed, Alt said.
"Whether they are listed (by the Endangered Species Act) or not, wolves will be managed on landscapes where people live and work," he said.
FWP is taking over many wolf management duties from the federal government.
Once delisted -- a step that could be years away -- Montana hopes to install limited hunting and trapping seasons for wolves, he said.
Copyright © 2003 Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. All rights reserved.
01-16-2005, 09:49 AM
#25
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N.W. Wyoming
Posts: 57
RE: WOLVES
Wolves apparently killed cougar-hunting hound
Associated Press
KALISPELL (AP) - A wolf pack killed and ate a prized cougar-hunting hound and injured another, Eureka-area tracker Randy Richard says.
Richard valued the blue-tick hound, Crow, at $3,000 and is upset that there is no program that will compensate him for the loss or go after the wolves.
"This doesn't make sense," Richard said. "If wolves kill livestock, a goat or sheep, there is compensation. This dog was worth more than any livestock that people are reimbursed for."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will take action when wolves kill livestock, and Defenders of Wildlife will compensate owners for livestock losses to wolves.
Tom Meier, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf biologist based in Kalispell, sympathized with Meier but said there is little else the agency can do.
Richard said he released his blue-tick hounds Crow and Grizzly on a cougar track east of Fortine Thursday and spent most of the day following them.
"I do this for training the dogs, getting them out and working them," he said. "I haven't killed a mountain lion for eight years, but I run and tree 35 to 55 lions a year."
Grizzly returned bleeding from bites on his hips.
"I knew right away we were into wolves, because that's how they attack, from behind," Richard said.
He searched for Crow until midnight and returned the next morning. He found the remains of his 90-pound hound about 200 yards from where he had quit searching the night before.
Richard said tracks at the scene indicated his two hounds had treed the mountain lion when the wolves closed in.
"It appeared there were four wolves that came in from one side and a large wolf that came in from the other," he said.
Meier agreed with Richard that the wolves were probably the Grave Creek pack.
"He thinks there were five of them, and that would be right for the Grave Creek pack," Meier said. "I think he's right."
Meier also agreed with Richard's assessment that the incident will have unfortunate side effects.
"Nobody is going to go over there to hunt for cougars anymore," Richard said, "and that will affect the state's management of mountains lions in that area."
Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division
Associated Press
KALISPELL (AP) - A wolf pack killed and ate a prized cougar-hunting hound and injured another, Eureka-area tracker Randy Richard says.
Richard valued the blue-tick hound, Crow, at $3,000 and is upset that there is no program that will compensate him for the loss or go after the wolves.
"This doesn't make sense," Richard said. "If wolves kill livestock, a goat or sheep, there is compensation. This dog was worth more than any livestock that people are reimbursed for."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will take action when wolves kill livestock, and Defenders of Wildlife will compensate owners for livestock losses to wolves.
Tom Meier, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf biologist based in Kalispell, sympathized with Meier but said there is little else the agency can do.
Richard said he released his blue-tick hounds Crow and Grizzly on a cougar track east of Fortine Thursday and spent most of the day following them.
"I do this for training the dogs, getting them out and working them," he said. "I haven't killed a mountain lion for eight years, but I run and tree 35 to 55 lions a year."
Grizzly returned bleeding from bites on his hips.
"I knew right away we were into wolves, because that's how they attack, from behind," Richard said.
He searched for Crow until midnight and returned the next morning. He found the remains of his 90-pound hound about 200 yards from where he had quit searching the night before.
Richard said tracks at the scene indicated his two hounds had treed the mountain lion when the wolves closed in.
"It appeared there were four wolves that came in from one side and a large wolf that came in from the other," he said.
Meier agreed with Richard that the wolves were probably the Grave Creek pack.
"He thinks there were five of them, and that would be right for the Grave Creek pack," Meier said. "I think he's right."
Meier also agreed with Richard's assessment that the incident will have unfortunate side effects.
"Nobody is going to go over there to hunt for cougars anymore," Richard said, "and that will affect the state's management of mountains lions in that area."
Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division
01-17-2005, 07:31 PM
#27
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N.W. Wyoming
Posts: 57
RE: WOLVES
Home > News > Wyoming > Wolves hurt some, help others
Wolves hurt some, help others
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].
Wolves hurt some, help others
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].
!!
01-22-2005, 02:46 PM
#29
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 815
RE: WOLVES
The wolves are out of control. I grew up elk hunting between cooke city,MT and Cody,WY. just driving up the highway you would be GUARANTEED to spot moose. It wasnt uncommon for 15+ moose to be seen, every cow had at least one calf. I took my kids up there this summer on vacation and we had to turn around and go through the area FOUR times before we finally saw ONE old cow and she had no calf. It's pathetic. The real sad thing is that these decisions are made by people who have no real interest in it, only a PHILOSOPHICAL interest. We need to start push BUSH/CHENEY to clean out the Forest service/BLM/US FISH&Wildlife they are full of tree hugging liberals with agendas.