WOLVES
 

USF&W announced today that in Idaho and Montana wolves can be shot if attacking livestock and pets. I am sure they are allowing this to punish Wyoming for not doing as they say. Wyoming is just starting court procedings with the lawsuit they filed against the USF&W for not accepting Wyomings management plan. Wyoming bowed thier neck and stood up against the feds and I am proud of Wyomings stance on the very emotional and controversial issue.[>:]

RE: WOLVES
 

Here in MT the wordans have killed many wolves all ready. I think they should let people hunt them not fly around and just ahoot them. The big think here in MT now is to fly around and shoot every coyote they see NEVER picking them up. This to me is a big wast it should go onder the wast not want not law.


LET there be wolf hunts

RE: WOLVES
 

what are you expecting someone to do with coyote/wolf kills? leaving them lay has been standard operating procedure for as long as i can remember.

RE: WOLVES
 

We take them to the mink farm and feed them to the minks so nothing goes to waste

RE: WOLVES
 

This is called the fur indrestry they use furs of all kinds for coats gloves hats and tons more items. bones are sold to crafty people they make all kinds of indain art.If it is cold where you live JROOT I bet you walk buy tons of coats with fur trim DOG fox and yote.

Allso there is a very high demand for the hides just to hang on the wall in people houses.

I will be glade to take EVERY wolf you shoot. In trade you could come hunt MT any time I would be glade to lead you to some elk :}

RE: WOLVES
 

Thanks RandyL
Just found the site with the info. Hopefully hunting will follow soon in these area's where they have destroyed the Elk hunting.;)


New U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regulation Allows Maximum Management of Gray Wolves for the States of Montana and Idaho

News Releases Home Page

Search the News Releases
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Home




Contacts
Ed Bangs (406) 449-5225, x204
Sharon Rose (303) 236-4580


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unveiled a new regulation today that expands the authority of States and Native American Tribes with Service-approved wolf management plans to manage gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains population.



The rule only applies to States and Tribes that have Service-approved wolf management plans. Only two States, Montana and Idaho, where there are about 550 wolves, presently fit that category. At this time, this regulation does not apply to the State of Wyoming because it does not have a Service-approved wolf management plan. The new rule takes effect in Montana and Idaho in 30 days.



"These changes provide a logical transition between management by the Federal government and management by the States and Tribes," said Ralph Morgenweck, Regional Director of the Service's Mountain-Prairie Region. "State and Tribal management under scientifically sound wolf management plans provides effective wolf conservation and will allow the States and Tribes to gain valuable management experience in anticipation of delisting."



Wolf populations now exceed their numerical recovery goals under the Endangered Species Act in the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. However, before delisting can be proposed, each of the three States must have a State management plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana and Idaho have approved wolf management plans and this rule ONLY applies in those States at this time.




"Unfortunately, at this time we are unable to continue with the process to delist this wolf population because we do not have approved plans for all three states. However, we believe that it is appropriate to pursue as much local management for this recovered wolf population as possible," Morgenweck said.



This rule recognizes the unique and special relationship between Federal and Tribal governments. This rule provides Tribes with all the same opportunities on reservation lands that it offers the States on lands under State wildlife management authority. Tribes with Service-approved wolf management plans can assume the lead for wolf management on their reservation lands through the same process that is available to the States. This rule also treats Tribal members' lands on reservations as private property within the borders of States with approved wolf plans, increasing wolf management flexibility to protect the private property of tribal members. In addition, Tribal members who are legally grazing their livestock on public lands may protect them from wolf attack.



Interest over the proposed rule, known as a 10(j) rule under the Endangered Species Act, for wolf management in the Northern Rockies stimulated more than 23,000 comments after it was published in March 2004. The final rule announced today is as a result of input and review of comments from the public, States, Federal agencies and Tribes.



Under the final 10j rule, landowners in States with a Service-approved wolf management plan are able to take additional steps to protect their livestock and dogs from attacks by wolves. States can lead wolf management, including the authority to issue written take authorizations to landowners or public land permittees to control wolves that consistently pose a threat to their livestock. On public lands, grazing permittees and guiding and outfitter permittees are allowed to take wolves attacking their livestock or domestic animals herding and guarding livestock without prior written authorization.



The changes only affect the experimental population areas established in Montana and Idaho when wolves were reintroduced in 1995 and1996. The new regulation does not apply to wolf populations in the Great Lakes region or in the southwestern United States.



Among other things, the regulation provides that in Montana and Idaho:



Wolves attacking livestock, livestock herding and guarding animals, and dogs on private land can be taken by landowners without prior written authorization.


Wolves attacking livestock and livestock herding and guarding animals on public grazing allotments can be taken by grazing permittees, guides and outfitters, and on ceded lands by Tribal members, without written authorization.


Wolves determined to be causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife populations, such as herds of deer and elk, can be taken by State or Tribal agencies. This is allowed only after the States or Tribes complete science-based documents that have undergone public and peer review and have been approved by the Service.


States or Tribes with approved wolf management plans can establish Memorandums of Agreement with the Secretary of the Interior, or cooperative agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to lead gray wolf conservation and management in the experimental areas within their States or reservations boundaries.


Gray wolves were reintroduced in the Northern Rockies as nonessential experimental populations under the Endangered Species Act in 1995 and 1996. This designation allowed Federal, State and Tribal agencies and private citizens more flexibility in managing these populations while allowing for rapid recovery of the wolf population.



The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resources offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign and Native American tribal governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

-fws-


nfo.

RE: WOLVES
 

Here is a link to a story about wolves driving elk herds from feeding areas in WyomingWolves driving Elk from feeding Areas
Look out.... the Enviro-Whackos (and all thier money& NON science) Must be defeated on this one

That didn't work,did it?? Try going to www.outdoorsunlimited.net

RE: WOLVES
 

I am just curious but since wolves and elk co-existed before we got here-what upsets the balance now when we introduce wolves? Before anybody goes off on me I am not an animal whacko-I hunt deer, elk, birds, waterfowl and coyotes-I am just curious as to why this is a problem.

RE: WOLVES
 

DUCK what every one is woried about is the wolves doing the job of the hunters[ keeping the elk numbers down]. If this hapens the number of tags given out will go down very fast and stay down means NO elk hunting in some spots.I do not like the fact that ANY rancher can now kill any and all wolves after his cows. I think they should be hunted not vush shot and left to waist.

One of the bigest things with hunting is to not waist the game we have to hunt. I beleave the new law over wolves makes it so ranchers and guides can kill atmost any time they would like. NO tag nedded nor do they keep the animal.

RE: WOLVES
 

DUCKSTAMPEDE, that is a good point. But 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
 

More reading!

http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...840003348d.txt

RE: WOLVES
 

I think that is where I am coming from-once outside the park-they should be fair game and the method of taking should be controlled not just open season. I have actually seen wolves in the wild and I believe without poisoning and the like they will survive again just like the coyotes do-but once they come out of the protected areas then we ought to be able to 'manage' them.

RE: WOLVES
 

I wish the USF&W thought that way!!!! :)

RE: WOLVES
 

Never will-that group has been invaded by a bunch of sporting people not hunters

RE: WOLVES
 

The problem is this is a park where the wolves have been reintroduced. Before there were no fences, property bounderies and animals were free to roam.
The Wolves now are overgrazing so to speak and are wandering outside the park in search for food.(Elk Deer Domestic animals)
I think eventually we will need to go inside the park to reduce the wolf population and then reintroduce the Elk where they have been overgrazed.
Fine open a hunting season to take care of the wandering Wolves out side the park boundary pushing the Wolves back to an already overgrazed park.
Kinda stupid Huh.......... This has been the controversy. Common sense verses emotion. They reintroduced the wolf with no plan for management.
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.

RE: WOLVES
 

Don't leave out the illustrious US Fish and Wildlife, thier lies, contradictions, deceit, and warm and fuzzy administration.

RE: WOLVES
 

Here is an e-mail sent to me from an outfitter in Montana. Some whacko really went off on him.



We have been going the rounds with this guy and his hate mail regarding my
stance on the wolf. Included for your benefit.
Jonesy

Hi All,
Someone, on their own, did some detective work and found that the hate mail
to me with the email address [email protected] is coming from Mark Morin,
who is a photographer. He graduated from a private school, tuition $32,000
per year, which may explain his snobbish derision of my AA degree from Mesa
Community College in his recent email. Of course he ignored my achievement
of being in the top 2% of the Junior Class at Arizona State University. I'm
still an ignorant uneducated slob, to him.
This "detective" found out a lot more about him, including the fact
that I am not the first to whom he has sent hate mail, some more
inflammatory and specific regarding threat of bodily harm. This
"detective" also implied that a criminal investigation might be opened
because of the hate mails, not only to me but regarding some of the other
hate mails. It is a crime to threaten people. I am going by what this
"detective" had to say and I cannot vouch for the truth of the statements,
but I believe them to be correct as the "detective" is very credible.
Mark, I know you are on my list under a different email address and
you are reading this. Again, I don't hate you, but I think you are in
serious need of counseling and emotional therapy if you hate those of us
who think the introduction of the non-native Canadian Gray Wolf was and is
a big mistake.
And for the rest of you, if you reply to Mark or meet Mark anywhere,
please be polite and don't stoop to his level. For those of you elected
officials who are on my list and may take comment from Mark in a public
meeting, consider the source. When a person stoops to calling names using
expletives and gutter language instead of rational presentation of facts
and opinions, their credibility is nil.
Our previous communications are below, so you can see what has transpired.
Jonesy

From Jonesy:
You people that actually appreciated my last email regarding the wolf must
really be fringe kooks. This guy really hates me, I guess. I don't
understand why our lives are being disrupted by the wolf and yet we don't
"hate" the people responsible (at least I don't), but they literally hate
us for thinking the wolf should be eliminated and shouldn't have ever been
brought to this country. Here is his message to me.

I read your crap about the wolves...you are the biggest piece of inbred
sht....I guess you can't because you are too gutless and stupid to compete
against other men in business so you have to resort to killing wildlife for
a living...let's face it...you have no talent...life has kicked your
ass...you failed...your family must be so embarrassed by you....
the wolves are great....we want them back...you only represent you....and
nobody even knows you exsist...you could drop dead today and nobody would
notice....so you keep just acting like killing wildlife is some type of
career....like the animals are only here for you to make money off...all
the wildlife is here for a jerkoff like you to make money...yeah ok...it
sucks to be you....

And here is my reply to him.
Reply to Wolf Worshipper (you could have signed your name instead of hiding
behind an anonymous email),
My problem with the wolf is that he kills wildlife wantonly, without regard
to conservation. In areas of Canada and Alaska where there are many
wolves, there is a marked scarcity of ungulates. In some areas the moose
are totally eliminated, as is the case in some places in Wyoming, such as
the Dunoir Valley near Dubois. Dunoir has historically been the home of
about 100 moose. They are now extinct because of the Washakie wolf
pack. Is that "restoring balance to the ecosystem"?
Just do the math; The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates around
400 wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem. USFWS also says each wolf is
responsible for the death of 1.9 elk per month per wolf, or about 20 per
year. (the official government figures, not mine) Just do the math.
Have a nice day.
Jonesy

2nd communication
At 02:06 PM 1/11/2005, you wrote:
>Let's see....it's after lunch time so I am sure you 3 losers are on your
>2nd case of Milwaukee's best....the reality is you were way to stupid and
>poor to go to college....you can't keep real jobs...you think you killing
>wildlife to make make easy money takes priority over wolves, mountain
>lions and bears eating to survive...
>
>Nobody respects you....you're drunken, lazy, fat slobs...you sit in your
>cabins reading kiddy porn...beating your 3rd wives...you have never
>traveled outside of your state....you wouldn't last 5 minutes in NYC....I
>live in Montana on one of the toughest pieces of land there is....we have
>1000s of acres...antelope...deer....elk...mountian lions....and ZERO
>hunters....and we are going to keep buying more and more and more and more
>land....
>
>you just sit there rubbing deer piss on your face...just drink the whole
>bottle...
>
>Here's hoping the gun backfires into your skull!! The wolf is back and
>there isn't anything you can do to stop it....you lose........
Jonesy Reply:
You know, I am truly sorry that you are consumed with so much hatred. I
honestly don't hate you for your feelings for the wolf. We disagree, but
only you are being disagreeable.
Sorry, I don't drink alcoholic beverages. I've never tasted
liquor. Am a teetotaler.
I graduated from Mesa Community College "With High Distinction",
taking 21 semester hours the last semester in order to graduate. I
continued with a year and a half at Arizona State University. I majored in
Music ( 3 semesters), Accounting (2 semesters--A letter from the Dean
congratulated me for being in the top 2% of the Junior Class), and Game &
Fish Management (2 semesters). I have owned and operated my own
businesses (many of them) since 1974, and a "dummy" can't survive in the
business world.
If you think guiding hunters is "easy money", I invite you to join me
at 3:00 AM to saddle horses in the rain, then work hard all day in
inclement weather helping people have a wilderness experience (the majority
of them don't kill an animal), then get to bed at 10 PM for seven weeks
straight.
Humans have to eat to survive just like bears and wolves do, and the
vast majority of humans eat meat as a major part of their diet. I guess
the only difference between you and me is that you hire someone to kill
your meat for you, unless you are vegetarian, of course. But even then,
who is to say that plants don't "hurt" and "bleed" and "suffer" when harvested.
I've traveled to many places in the world, lived in Korea for 2
years, visited Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Canada, Japan, Wake Island, The
Caribbean, England, France, Switzerland, Italy, and most of the USA
including Alaska and Hawaii. I think I know what the world is like outside
my little corner of it.
Never have looked at kiddie porn. I can think of nothing more
disgusting.
I am very content with only one wife, thank you.
I've visited New York City three times and spent more than 5 minutes
there, and survived it. I found it a fascinating place with friendly
people. I've spent about 6 months in San Francisco, also Chicago, Phoenix
(was raised there), Minneapolis, Washington, DC, and other very large
cities. I'm not exactly a "country bumpkin", but I much prefer the very
sparsely populated areas, like Wyoming.
Sorry, I've never rubbed deer piss in my face, but I'm sure you would
like me to.
Why don't you try to get along? We can disagree, but we should be able to
intelligently discuss the issues instead of go to war over them.
Jonesy

3rd Email:
wow...Mesa Community College......"the Harvard of the West"....

you are the enemy of wildlife no matter what kind of spin you try and put
on it...it all rings hollow....and I am just the opposite....I don't have
to email anybody else to hide behind....I am the man....and I dictate the
wolf stays....period.

My Reply:
No, wolves are the enemy of wildlife. Where did all the moose go in Dunoir
Valley? Why has the population of elk decreased by 10,000 since the return
of the wolf? What are wolves going to do when the wildlife is gone?
If you are "the man", then why not sign your name and let me know who you are?
Sorry, couldn't afford to go to Harvard. Besides, they might have
brainwashed me and I would be as intolerant as you are.
Jonesy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: WOLVES
 

[:'(] " I am the man...And I DICTATE the wolfs stay...Period!" FOR ALL THAT EDUCATION MONEY ......it should be "the wolves stay!!"

One of three things here; #1 this is my US representative
# 2 This is one of my senators
Or # 3 It came from god


Then there is the truth:
This is the caliber of people all outdoor recreationalists ARE dealing with......... be they hunters, Atv'ers, 4 wheelers, Snowmobilers, Mountain bikers, backcountry horsemen, or anyone who wants to deal with the outdoors on thier own terms

RE: WOLVES
 

;) I went to search...typed Bonefish97, and it was the one choice that came up, I clicked and BINGO.........gay chat! Thought of pasting it, but the moderators might not approve

RE: WOLVES
 

Thanks for sharing that Hunter_59. Your friend Jonsey is a class act. He did good! :D

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

RE: WOLVES
 

Exactly~i agree - the feds screw up puting those wolfs in in the first place - are dictated to by fringe wacko groups like peta& those wolf worsiper/family of the buffalo type ppl .They continue
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

RE: WOLVES
 

Like the bumber sticker that I saw in salmon Idaho says with out the cuss words "Shoot the wolves, if that don't work shoot the stupid people who intoduced them here!
I agree!:D

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.

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

RE: WOLVES
 

If you leave the wolves alone they will eat enough livestock, and a few tourist than the feds will put a bounty on them.

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].

RE: WOLVES
 

Speaking of cougar tracking hounds.....wouldn't wanna be this cat;)!!

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.

RE: WOLVES
 

great cat piture

and Amen to that NVMIKE

RE: WOLVES
 

Aggree with all of the post, but THIS part is especially urgent to hunters,ATV riders ,Snowmobilers, 4x4 enthusiasts or anyone who (once again) wants to deal with the outdoors on thier own terms.

RE: WOLVES
 

I agree NVMike.

RE: WOLVES
 

I am a rancher, who loves to hunt and fish. Where I live we have alot of preditors in the area, and I have two kids. We live off of the livestock we sell, that is what puts food on the table and cloths on our back. The wolves have not yet shown up here, but I can tell you that if it comes to putting food on the table or allowing the wolves to have their way, you can bet that the wolves are going to lose.

RE: WOLVES
 

Wolves? Aliens? Drought? Bears? What say ye? Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![>:]

1/21/2005

CHEYENNE – As the Feb. 28 application deadline approaches, prospective moose and bighorn sheep hunters are alerted to changes in license availability for 2005.

On the south side of Yellowstone National Park, moose areas 7, 14 and 32 have been closed by the Game and Fish Department for 2005 and 2006 to conduct an extensive study on population demographics and survival to get a better understanding of recent population declines.

On the east side of the YNP, areas 11, 12, 13 and 31 have been further combined into one area after being managed as two areas last year. The change is also due to a declining moose population and to allow the few hunters more area to spread out.

The antlerless licenses in areas 30 (south tip of Wind River Range) and 37 (west side of Tetons) have been eliminated for 2005 due to declining populations.

On the west side of the Big Horn Mountains, the moose licenses for areas 42 and 43 were split after being managed together last year. After setting seasons very conservatively in the areas initial open seasons, the G&F believes the population is sufficient to allow separate seasons in each area.

Bighorn

RE: WOLVES
 

I agree with NVMike too. Were do we start turning the screws on Bush/Cheney?

RE: WOLVES
 

More Goodies on this one! Wolf story- Billings Gazette
Just in case the link doesn't work.... this came from www.outdoorsunlimited.net

RE: WOLVES
 

Submitted by Robinhood36, good reading, and it contradcits what the prowolf USF&W is saying.


http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wolf_pics.htm

RE: WOLVES
 

Check out this site if you want to know the truth on these predators.

http://www.natureswolves.com/index.html

RE: WOLVES
 

GREAT sites on the last 2 posts!!!!!!!!!! Starting to look as if this thread belongs on Hunting politics TOO!!!

RE: WOLVES
 

Big Game biologist doesn’t call for eradication of wolves

Anti-wolf groups have pointed to Dr. Valarius Geist, a prominent ungulate biologist from Canada, as someone who dislikes wolves and supports the agenda of wolf removal. To quote a USA Today article, “Jack Oyler (of the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife) of the coalition cites the research done by Val Geist, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Calgary. Geist contends the West's plentiful big-game animals are the result of careful wildlife management, and wolves on the loose undo those efforts.”

In public hearings, in defense of his anti-wolf stance, Ron Gillette has stated that Dr. Geist is the “Michael Jordan” of big game biologists and points to his statements as proof that wolves should be eradicated.

This isn’t the case.

Dr. Geist is an important figure in wildlife conservation and study, as a quick internet search would show. I decided to write Dr. Geist directly and get his views of wolves and wildlife from the source.

Dr. Geist, while critical of the reintroduction currently taking place in the Western United States, does not call for the complete removal of wolves from the region that Ron Gillette hopes for. In one letter, Dr Geist responded;

“You asked the question: "Is there any room for wolves in the Western United States?" Of course there is! The question is not if, but how to introduce wolves so as to minimize problems and dissent, and insure that the wolves, once reintroduced, will have a secure long-term existence.”

This is some distance ideologically from the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition’s mission statement of “No Negotiations, No Compromise, No Consensus, and No Wolves in Idaho.” Dr. Geist goes on to state that there is a proper way to approach predator conservation;

“The details that concern us here is the known biology of our large carnivores. Another level of details deals with systems of wildlife conservation and their historical effectiveness or lack thereof. The goal has to be first and foremost to strengthen effective systems of wildlife conservation as only such insure the survival of large predators”

Dr. Geist seems to have a balanced approach to predator recovery issues, in tune with groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. He reaffirms that there is a place for wolves in the west, but only if management plans include rural communities and hunters.

So once again, we're left wondering what the heck Ron Gillette and the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition are doing. Aside from apparently misquoting important scientists, they've also raised a lot of money and political capitol which, again apparently, has vanished with little to show for it. Sadly, as a private business, the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition isn't subject to laws which protect and empower people who donate to non-profit groups.

Perhaps a few letters to the Better Business Bureau are in order? http://complaints.bbb.org/welcome2.asp Until then it's "Buyer Beware."


-FD