|
|
Do you agree with the decision this week that restores protection to the region’s gray wolves?
Rules of Conduct
- 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
- 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
- 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
- 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or remarks that degrade another person.
- 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on comments to let us know of abusive posts.
- 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness acounts, the history behind an article.
Welcome to the discussion.
89 comments:
© Copyright 2012, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Bozeman, MT
Idaho Frank posted at 10:51 pm on Thu, Sep 2, 2010.
Judge Molloy said "I understand the practical argument, I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don't understand is the legal argument. That's not very clear" (concerning Wolf delisting)
The question is how the USFWS has the legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment of Wolves in the first place.
USFWS has no authority to create any Distinct Population Segment for any reason, at any time.
The ESA is a garbage Act that has overstayed its welcome. The intent behind the Act was left behind many years ago and is now nothing more than a weapon to use and abuse by environmental groups. As a result we see ridiculous rulings from the courts that fail to take into consideration wildlife and the very species the Act was intended to save. Who is playing the politics?
These animals were imported as a "Nonessential, Experimental Species." The experiment has failed. Now it is time to get rid of them!
They are being used and abused as a huge cash cow for environmental groups, while causing harm to Idaho's Agriculture base, and wildlife.
Managment-Yes. Poison, Traps, Snares, Denning, Ariel Hunts-Definately, as well as anything else we can think of to rid ourselves of this blight on our landscape.
Fud posted at 2:30 pm on Tue, Aug 24, 2010.
It is so obvious to myself and many others in Idaho that the endangered species act is being abused. Not only for the Wolf but what is going on with the Grizzly. See the link here written by Idaho Fish and Wildlife - so when our own state biologist say the management of wolves is out of control - http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/surveys/10tenj/
I hope a third party federal judge will look into this, too. It is the same judge that has spoken for our federal government - wolves & Grizzlies!
I really hope the hunters and others that love the out of doors and wildlife will start to make a noise - it is past time for the silent majority to be heard - unfortunately we should have spoken earlier as the endangered species act is now being used as a weapon and hurting the wildlife community - wolves are now down into many communities of Idaho and as far south as Boise, Idaho's foothills.
Our State needs to be allowed to manage the wildlife - not the federal government who does not have a clue or really care what is going on in Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.
Retired posted at 4:31 pm on Sun, Aug 22, 2010.
Well, court decisions are really not about popular opinion, are they? Recall your civics class about the division of powers? This is about the rule of law, and that is all it is about. Extremeists on any side of an issue can blog, line up outside a court house, write letters to the editor, etc. None of that counts. What does count is the rule of law, and I'm for that regardless of where a court decision falls.
reason posted at 1:33 pm on Sat, Aug 21, 2010.
Why dont we keep the wolves at controlled herds so that we can feed the big game meat to hungry humans that need the food. More elk, more hungry HUMANS get to eat. By either eating the meant themselves or donating it to the local food banks. If you are living in Montana and own a home, rent, or camp here, you are as much of a problem as the wolves.
Kip from Newman Lake posted at 10:40 am on Fri, Aug 20, 2010.
The USF@W has spent $35,731,000 through 2009 and has budgeted $4,206,000 for FY2010 to resore wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain Region. By 2007 they have killed or authorized to be killed 1250 wolves and they are coutinuing to destroy 3 to 400 each year primarily because they kill stock. Makes a lot of fiscal sense, doesn't it?
Also there is a very strong possibility that the wolves reintroduced into this area are a different subspecies than existed before they were eradicated from from the Northern Rocky Mountain area.
Finally, the so called "Balance of Nature" that the pro wolf folks like to point out is a mythical point in time, it keeps changing and evolving. In this area, it changed dramatically when "white men" arrived. It changed when "Native Americans" aquired horses. It probably changed when the first humans came to this area 12,000 years ago and the Wooly Mamoths and other animals disapeared.
To return Wolves to this area has got to be one of the dumbest ideas the Feds have ever come up with. That said, unfortunatly they are here to stay, and Wyoming must come up with a wolf management plan that USF@W will accept, otherwise the rest of us will have to live with this vicious predator as a "protected species"for many more years.
letlive posted at 7:11 pm on Thu, Aug 19, 2010.
My question to pro-wolf folks is simple - how many wolves are enough? Can you not see that the numbers have grown so much they have upset the balance of wildlife by decimating big game herds in alarming numbers? I have no problem with your love for this animal but do you not care about any other species? I am perplexed at the seemingly one-sided argument that ignores facts. Look it up - the Canadian Wolf is NOT native to MT, ID, WY, etc. and is MUCH LARGER than the native Timber wolf. Additionally, the larger wolf packs attack the Timber wolves. It's a fact! Wolfs DO KILL FOR SPORT - have you not seen the gruesome pictures of both domestic and wild animals left to die with only their soft parts eaten? They did a slow agonizing death. It's a fact! From pro-arguments, it seems these predators can kill off mass numbers of other wildlife and it's okay. Why?
I maintain that a BALANCE is desperately needed and it must be done by humans as there is no other species to do this. While the pro-wolf folks have noble ideals, from most comments I read, it is all too obvious that their lives are not affected by the out-of-control wolf populations. I live where they have negatively and economically impacted us greatly as hunting is virtually non-existent where it once thrived - and YES, this must be part of the balance. Hunting aside, I am also tired of not being able to hike into the mountains or go fishing without a weapon.
No one thing should be able to totally disrupt multiple facets of life in the name of idealism. BALANCE and proper management is the only answer.
Reality22 posted at 3:23 pm on Wed, Aug 18, 2010.
I've been watching the Northern Rockies wolf issues from a distance (WI) . It is clear to me that the Montana & Idaho wildlife managers need to change. What I believe needs to happen is to legislate the removal of all wolf programs & personal and send them back to the Feds..... until they have the issue resolved Montana and Wyoming can save their pennies to hire fresh blood in this area. Basically this is what Wyoming has done & all the finger pointing is at them. I cannot believe how some of the articles in the LA times depict Wyoming .... I feel that Wyoming has proved that they represent the sportsman & ranchers of that fine state. If I have anything to say to future sportsman traveling in that direction you know what it is! The spineless Montana and Idaho departments...need to be neutered! We need to send a message to New York and Los Angeles!
Legislate - all wolf depredation and management returned to the federal government
Legislate - cleaning house in the Montana and Idaho
Legislate - Wolf plans that return it’s population to what was agreed upon when they were first introduced!
If you don’t legislate it things will not change!
NoEconuts posted at 12:17 pm on Wed, Aug 18, 2010.
It is truly funny reading the anti American wolf lovers comments. Why do I call them adolescent screechers. Because like spoiled brats they refuse to grow up and accept the science, facts, and truth that the wolves are the worst environmental disaster to every single state they were illegally force on rural America. Look at the facts.
1. Documented facts ranchers have been forced out of business. Great the spoiled brats hate working Americans.
2. Outfitters have been forced out of business. Great the spoiled brats hate working Americans.
3. The lie of Eco tourism. Every time I heard about all these people who come to Yellowstone to hear the wolves howl I think of National Lampoons Vacation Chevy Chase. The Ranger asking them at the gate did you come to hear the wolves howl. Clark (Chevy Chase) getting a confused look on his face. Wolves? Ah, sure, yea that is why came here do we get a discount if we say yes. LOL Cause I have interview one heck of a lot of Hotel, restaurants, bar, small grocery store owners and ask this one question how much Eco tourism do you get to see the wolves. The answer is always the same none never. But they all tell me the same thing the hunters support us 1000 times more then any Eco tourism. Just the facts.
4. It is documented fact that controlling wolf population is the only way to save big game herd. Not That the adolescent screechers care about wildlife as far as the spoiled brats are concerned a barren landscape is cool. Will hunting and trapping wolves endangered the wolves? NO only an immature spoiled brat would ignore the scientific FACT that Dr Mech in his book Wolves stated that 35-50% of the wolf population can be harvested each and every single year with no harm to over all population. I know the immature spoiled brats just can't understand the fact that guess what wolves mate. Maybe your Mommy should explain the birds and the bees to you. Guess what the population is stable and hunting and trapping will NEVER cause the wolves to go extinct..
5. So we can listen to the spoiled brats the adolescent screechers cry and stomp their feet don't hurt the wolves. Yes we must keep the spoiled brats happy. Even if it cost rural America 10,000's of thousands of jobs.
Fire away spoiled brats. Time you children grow up and face facts. Wolves must be controlled if you can't handle that then get the hell out of America.
jedmijag posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Aug 18, 2010.
Gray wolves are not endangered. Canada has thousands and thousands of them. To list them as endangered takes away funding from other species that are in fact endangered. To play politics with the Endangered Species Act will ultimately destroy the act. Let the states manage the wolves. If the states fail we can always start over and re-instroduce more wolves from Canada. Its not like these are the last gray wolves on the planet. It is time for the States to usurp power back away from the feds. Time for us to solve problems at the local level and get the feds out of as much as possible.
LOBO WATCH posted at 7:35 pm on Tue, Aug 17, 2010.
basscat...
Here's a thought...maybe it is time to put the pressure on MT FWP (and puppet master Gov. Schweitzer) to refuse all management of Big Brother's killing machines. Turn all wolf management entirely over to federal authorities...along with all responsibility for the damage to wildlife resources, livestock and human lifestyles to the U.S. Department of the Interior. Then this state could file a lawsuit against the United States of America each and every time wolves cross the line and make a negative impact on big game populations...local economies based largely on hunting and wildlife oriented tourism...and the ranching community. We could start by filing suit for the damage "their wolves" have already done.
Likewise, the State of Montana could refuse to investigate any illegal wolf kills, or enforce any federal regulations that protect wolves.
It's time to dump this mess back on those who have created it - the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior.
Until then, I've heard that the Shoot...Shovel...and Shut Up season opens soon in full swing.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
basscat posted at 12:34 pm on Tue, Aug 17, 2010.
atta boy molloy! I think since he likes the wolves so much we should catch twelve wolves, two sets of six from rivalry packs and throw them in his living room along with anyone else that thinks we need those things around here. Spend a few days in the woods, follow wolves and see how they behave. It's disgusting, comparable to a psychological serial killer in the human world. So, ya lets keep protecting serial killers. I don't think i speak for just myself when i say protecting them doesn't really protect them for guys like me. Maybe we can have one killer party in jail?
LOBO WATCH posted at 9:37 am on Tue, Aug 17, 2010.
Tommy Boy, you remind me of Chris Farley in the movie "Tommy Boy".
"Average" is the key word. If the male wolves killed in Idaho "averaged" 101...
how large were the larger (and more mature) wolves taken? (Fact is, the majority of wolves taken there last year were relatively young wolves.)
I was on a hunt in the Northwest Territories a decade or so back, and hunters there took three huge male wolves. And the outfitter had a scale to weigh two of them, and they topped 140 pounds. The other was shot far from camp, and was skinned on the spot. The hide of that wolf was larger than the other two.
What do you think was the "average" weight of the male wolves that were native here (Canis lupus erremotus)? From all that I have read (before the likes of the greenie biologists who are now trying to change wolf science) that wolf (males) TOPPED OUT at around 90 pounds. So, my guess is that the typical "average" of a male erremotus was probably somewhere between 70 to 80 pounds.
Have you ever stepped out of your bubble and travelled to the Northland of Canada? The folks up there are still laughing at us stupid Yanks...for bringing their wolves here.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
tommy posted at 7:57 am on Tue, Aug 17, 2010.
climber, 30% smaller according to who? Just where are you getting your false information from? You say that the wolves now are much larger.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/
Rumors of 150-pound wolves abound in the Idaho Panhandle, but most of the wolves taken by hunters are much smaller.
Adult females averaged 86 pounds, according to Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials, who also included the weights of wolves struck by vehicles in the survey. For adult males, 101 pounds was the average.
These don't look like "much larger" wolves to me. You failed and you clearly have wrong information.
LOBO WATCH posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Aug 17, 2010.
WyoBob;
Those like Packmentaility surely have a bigger agenda than simply seeing wolves restored to the Northern Rockies. I'm sure it has something to do with another government driven fiasco, known as the Wildlands Project - to establish a wild, and pretty much humanless, corridor running from Alaska, along the western side of Canada and down along the Rockies all the way into Mexico.
And to reach that goal means that first the effort must rid the region of people. In other words, run people off the land. And that can only be accomplished by making it either far more undesireable to live within this corridor, or by making it impossible for people to provide for their families within this pipe dream of the greenie ecologists. Americans of the West have always lived close to the land - one of the rasons so many have chosen to either stay here or move here. And the great abundance of elk, deer and other wildlife has long been the magnet that either held them here or drew them to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Groups like Center for Biological Diversity and the extremely misnamed Defenders of Wildlife have realized that impacting these wildlife populations (and ranching) is a must in order to make the Northern Rockies less attractive to humans. And the tools they are using right now happen to be the wolf...and a puppet of a U.S. District Court judge. (Did you know that as a private practice attorney in Billings, before his seat on the bench, Molloy's clients included environmental groups? Sounds like some conflict of interest to me.)
Perhaps Packmentality actually works for (or with) Defenders of Wildlife - after all their Northern Rockies office is right there in Bozeman. That would surely explain the blinders this individual wears to avoid seeing the damage wolves continue to deal our wildlife resources. My guess is that he (or she) is a very strong supporter of the Wildlands Project...and forcing people away from this region, and into some big city elsewhere.
Maybe, just maybe, that's why were fighting so hard. The poll that brought all of us here is showing that the greenie side isn't quite as strong as they thought they were.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
WyoBob posted at 4:35 am on Tue, Aug 17, 2010.
This would be laughable if it were just a game.
It is amazing to me that when you can not come up with any arguments to support your claims that this "decision restores protection to the regions gray wolves" all you can do is start throwing around insults and calling people names.
You may not agree with the opinions expressed on this topic but you have drifted off topic. You may take offense at some of the remarks which have been made but it doesn't change those opinions being expressed.
This decision does not actually protect wolves in the region as lobo watch has said many sportsmen see this action as a direct threat to our wildlife resources. You can laugh and mock those that are expressing their frustration but you will only strengthen their resolve to take action themselves.
It is very clear, in my opinion, that the USFWS and all states currently living with wolves far in excess of stated recovery goals that protection of the species is no longer warranted. The biology and science have shown that hunting will pose little if any threat to the recovery efforts; however, the longer wolf advocates press for continued expansion and protection of a recovered species, the greater the likelihood that public support will wane. As social and economic impacts increase, more and more of the public support is eroded. All the name calling in the world will not hide the impacts. Judges have no business managing wildlife resources. It has always been the hunter/angler that has ponied up the money for wildlife management and we are the backbone of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. We will no longer sit back idle as you destroy our history and our heritage. This Country has long been ruled by those that tolerate and abide by the law; however, our history has shown that when the system gets broken, Americans will rebel until the problem is fixed. Making law abiding citizens criminals has never worked in this Country. Judge Molloy's actions were not warranted and will not protect wolves. Just for the record, I didn't ride a bus to school, I walked.
climber posted at 9:38 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
tommyboy, again, you have shown your ignorance at the timberwolf, canadian grey wolf subject. The timberwolf that is native to our area was approximately 30% smaller. It's cousin, the canadian grey wolf (sic) is much bigger, as is most northern climate animals...like the northern mooses vs. the southern shiras moose.
Again, I will not drag my friends into this discussion out of friendship. You mean nothing to me for me to drag my friends into this.
More pro wildlife people voted on this poll because there are more wildlife supporters than there are wolf supporters.
Oh yeah, I'm not a big hunter, so your false logic doesn't work with me.
tommy posted at 9:24 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
why is the poll the where it is? simple, more hunters voted than wolf supporters. This is one little poll. the size of a wolf DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT that it's the same wolf. Gray wolves are all of the same and even wolf biologist Dave Mech will tell you this. You keep saying our native wolf was a timberwolf. Just say it's a grey wolf and what's the difference between this supposednative wolf and a grey wolf from Canada ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This has to do with wolves eating elk, deer, and moose, animals you hunters want to hunt yourselves. You hate competition. Just like with tigers, one may weigh more than another one, but they are ALL THE SAME behavior wise. You won't put the biologist's names on here because you are lying and you know it. No biologist has ever said the wolves are non native canadian wolves and you know it. resorting to lies is not going to change the truth. Look up grey wolf, there is no wolf called the canadian grey wolf. A grey wolf is a grey wolf. Do you ever heard people called grey wolves in Alaska alaskan grey wolves or russian grey wolves? I sure haven't I done my own research, you have not and I called your bluff and proved you are a liar as you won't post the biologists names because no biologist ever said that.
tommy posted at 6:24 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
One more thing, a timberwolf is a grey wolf climber. I bet you didn't even know this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Wolf
Any subspecies of Canis lupus, the Gray Wolf which inhabits forested areas
The Eastern Wolf (Canis lupus lycaon), a subspecies of Gray Wolf from southeastern Canada, is sometimes called the Eastern Timber Wolf.
tommy posted at 6:19 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
And how exactly would you know how many have crossed? Bob Ream of Montana fwp has stated that 60% of Montana's wolf population are wolves that came down from Canada on their own. Now, I am waiting for you to all him a liar. You really have no clue or idea exactly how many wolves came down on their own. Post the names of those 2 biologists.
tommy posted at 6:14 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
climber, oh really. Post the names of those 2 fwp biologists, so Imay get in contact with them. I am calling your bluff. Post the names of the supposed 2 fwp biologists who said the wolves are non native. The so called smaller timberwolf was a grey wolf. Where do you think these wolves came from before they were so called native to Idaho? They came from somewhere else. All grey wolves are native to the united states. Learn some facts and please, post those names of the fwp biologists who you claim said the wolves are non native so I an verify your claims.
LOBO WATCH posted at 5:29 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Packmulebrains...
Hunters will take care of the problem...just as they did 75 to 100 years ago when help and funds were needed to bring big game populations out of the pit created by noncaring market harvesters. Those wildlife slaughterers could have cared less about wildlife populations back then...kind of like today's wolf lovers.
Today, the ones with absolutely no ehtics are proving to be the so-called "environmental" organizations...their phony followers...those with USFWS...the greenie wildlife biologists with a new agenda...and one very sorry excuse for a federal judge.
Say what you have to say, show your lack of wolf understanding, try to hide what is now known about the Canadian wolves dumped on us, and please defend the wolf to the very end. It is folks like you that give us hunters the drive to do what we have to do...and that is to eliminate one heck of a lot of wolves.
Thank you and others like you for the incentive.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
and
climber posted at 5:09 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
@ tommyboy...again I ask....why were 120 sheep killed in 1 night? I would say it was sport killing. You would say what? I doubt there are enough local animals to eat all of 120 sheep before they rotted and the meat disintegrated. That would be waste in nature in my book.
Like I said....I know two local FWP Biologists who say the Canadian Grey Wolf is not indigenous to the northern US Rockies. I have not personally talked to any others, and won't begin to state their opinions as you have. Wolves don't know our country boundaries, so yes, some have crossed, but not as many as you would like to think. The smaller timber wolf is our native wolf.
tommy posted at 4:56 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
climber, use your brain, it would take wolves days to eat 120 sheep. The ranchers came back while the wolves were about to eat and the wolves ran off. You weren't there so have no idea what happened. You rely on misinformation purposely given by hunters who hate wolves. livestock is not considered nature. they are non native animals who don't belong on the lands in the first place.
climber posted at 4:55 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
@ packmentality.....still waiting for your response to the 120 sheep killed in Dillon, yet you say they do NOT hunt for fun or sport.
I guess you must believe the wolf/wolves were stocking up for winter??
tommy posted at 4:51 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
climber, you don't know very much. Those pics you are speaking of, the only reason why that went to waste is because humans found the dead animal. If no one found the animal, other animals in the ecosystem would have certainly ate it. That is another lie or myth I should say. The wolves are very much native and have been crossing the canadian border to get into Montana, ID, and wy for years and years. You are peddling the same ol myths and lies I hear from all hunters who hate wolves. No facts, just emotion on your part. Where do you live? Id? There are 1000-1500 wolves in Idaho. I don't consider that a lot. or do you think that is alot for the simple fact that they are killing elk you think belongs to you and you wana be the one to hunt elk? No biologist has ever claimed these are non native wolves. This myth comes from those who hate wolves. A myth you can't back up with evidence that's for sure. lobowatch and saveelk.com real credible sites, NOT all anti wolf propaganda plain and simple
packmentality posted at 4:32 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
@Lobo watch..., you prove my point by your bogus info, and your example, of how hunters you know, will break the law, for THEIR reasons only.
Great way to show that hunters aren't as upstanding as you try to say they are as to conservation.
Man, guys I hunt with that would here someone say something like that, would have a problem. A big one!
Nice class!
climber posted at 4:31 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Tommy and Allie.....you are failing to even try to see any point to why we don't want the wolves this high in population. It's not that we hate wolves...we don't. There are too many of them however......way too many!1st off...this is a non-native species of wolf. I know, I know....you don't believe that!! Well, If you want to argue facts, then learn them. I have heard it from to FWP biologists that there were very FEW Canadian grey wolves. Those were strays from Canada. The actual native wolf for the northern US Rockies was the Timber Wolf. If you read the FWP paperwork from the very first "experimental" introduction, you would know that and quit arguing the point.
2nd....you said, "Wolves do not kill for SPORT. That is a myth. Wolves kill to eat. Experts have witnessed wolves kill animals and than leave only to come back later on to finish the kill they made. Even if wolves don't eat the animals they kill, other animals do, so the kills are not doing to waste." Again, I would like to ask about the 120 sheep that were slaughtered in 1 night outside of Dillon, MT.? Was that not a waste? Was that not for SPORT? If not, what was it? What other animals were going to come in and eat all 120 sheep before they ROTTED? Yet you say nothing in nature goes to waste? Are you really that blind? Go to lobowatch.com or saveelk.com and try to learn something. Everything they put on their websites is factual....not propaganda. Warning though.....you may not be able to stomach it though!
tommy posted at 4:29 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Toby, that is what you think. Are you forgetting that Idaho couldn't meet the wolf quota of 220 even when hunters had a 7 month long season on them? Controlling wolves? Aren't you that guy who said hunting won't control wolf #s,? Face it Toby, those good ol days are max elk harvest are long gone. The wolves are back and elk they shall eat. No amount of hunters turned poachers WILL CHANGE THAT.
packmentality posted at 4:26 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
I "name call" as you call it because of the moronic comments from some of you all, that takes us back as a people, about a hundred years!
I gave you facts!
Because you don't want to believe them is not my problem.
To the comment about the wolves coming in and killing 120 sheep. I promise I will read the article before I comment on that particular thought, but many accounts have been tampered with, all in the name of pro-wolf hating bias.
What 230lb. wolf have you seen! that's a good one!
Rarely, and I mean rarely would you find a wolf in the 200 pound range.
You all have come out with the big bad wolf stories, mis-information, or general numbers on events that are with addition of wolves, not exclusively about wolves.
Your babbling has become comical.
If you read any of my comments, you'd see that I'm for PROPER management.
What don't you get !?
Read some of your pro-wolf haters comments here, and tell me you don't think they are clueless about wildlife!
Noeconuts calls people greenie, but I don't hear any of you calling them "name callers!"
You people are supposed to be hard and tough rancher folk, who fight the rugged outdoors, and tame the wild beast!
Sally's, every last one of ya!
Longdraw, present company excluded. I appreciate your view. Don't always agree, but respect your opinion.
Seeing the comments from some like "hate tree huggers" should be a example of what others see on the wolf hunting side.
Unfortunate.
Again, it's a falsehood to say they kill for fun, yet understand there are many reasons for leaving a kill. They are animals, not humans!
Thus, why I believe proper management by the proper authorities is better than random hunting of a highly structured animal that can have devastating effects.
Elk slayer, I hate tree huggers.....,people like you, bring discredit to the ones on here who debate issues with facts.
I suppose the studies from those in WY,ID, MT, are bogus, because some scientist tree hugger did it, not some hunting buddy of yours who knows all!
Just because you live there, doesn't mean you have a clue pal,
As we can see over the last century of wildlife maintenance!
Try google searching others views besides your perspective, then we'll debate.
Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke!
If caring about the environment and the eco-system makes me a "tree hugger", then proud to be one.
But this tree hugger hunts for food, and has served my country and fellow man on many levels.
How about you sport?
tommy posted at 3:49 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
longdraw, game is not being wasted. You blame wolves for killing elk when you do the same exact thing. Difference is wolves NEED elk to survive year round, you do not. You fail to recognize than even if a wolf doesn't eat their kill right after they kill it, other animals will eventually do so. This is a fact. Nature is brutal. You are clearly faulting it for being brutal. You do not understand nature. nothing in nature goes to waste. Wolves are not wasting food. If they don't eat it, other animals will. Get over it.
LOBO WATCH posted at 3:45 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Allie...Allie...Allie...
That's what you greenies keep telling each other...but the wolves aren't listening...they're too busy out there killing. And they're killing far more than they eat.
There will probably be a new condition named to describe the severe denial that you and those like you now suffer...it'll probably be called Walt Disneyopia...or Disneylexia. Wolves are excessive and wasteful killers. Maybe you didn't read about the one (sngle) wolf that killed more than 130 sheep on one ranch on one night last fall (near Dillon, MT) - and ate nothing. And there are lots of cases where wolves have killed a dozen or more head of cattle or sheep, and not eat anything. We also now know that the average wolf, for sustenance kills around 30 elk/deer/moose annually. And, like it or not, all evidence now point to the fact that each also kills nearly as much other wildlife just for the fun of killing.
Like you, wolves do not spend a penny on conservation efforts.
I'm sorry my dear, the wolves really don't give a darn about what you and other way off track "experts" keep claiming.
They have already destroyed a number of elk herds, to the point that, even if every wolf in the region were killed, it would take 40 or more years for those herds to recover.
What little Judge Donnie Molloy has done has been to raise the anger of hunters to the point that far more wolves will be killed this fall and winter than if the planned hunts had been allowed to take place. There will be tens of thousands of hunters in the field this coming season...and any wolf that steps out probably stands better than a 50/50 chance of being shot. There will be control of wolf numbers whether Molloy likes it or not. Maybe they need to call in the National Guard. But then, those are just more armed individuals that would probably shoot wolves, especially those who hunt and are tired of this idiocy.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
fanning posted at 1:47 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Allie ,
It's not about "loves wolves - hates wolves " it's about wolf densities and who gets to decide those densities based on whose values.
EarthJustice / NRDC / Defenders's case unnecessarily languished for over 2 years when Molloy could have ruled in a week and sent it to a higher court. This dilatory tactic allowed wolf populations to grow by an additional 60 % and guaranteed dispersal into Co., Ut., Wa., Ore., thus creating more " threatened" populations and bureaucracies to protect them and exploded the size of the DPS when the original "intent" of the non essential experiment was merely 78 to 100 wolves in Yellowstone. Congressional intent of the non essential experiment said absolutely nothing about Trophic cascades .
Instead they gave 3 non negotiable directives when studying the feasability of the illeagal wolf "re" introduction
1} "don't hurt hunting"
2} "don't hurt the local economies"
3} "dont hurt the already threatened grizly bear."
Here is what a bipartisan super majority of those who you label as "bone heads" formalized as Montana's values when it comes to wolves and the densities of wolves our state will tolerate.
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm
Allie Belugas posted at 1:32 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Wolves have just as much right on the landscape as you or me. I have been around wolves for a long time and they are not a violent, dangerous pest like you boneheads say they are. They do not decimate herds of anything and only take what they need when they need it to survive another week. Thats more than i can say for humanity and its stockpiles of goods. Unless you are Native American your a non native too. They are a beautiful, secluded, creature that deserves protection if and when needed. Excellent decision from the judge. Protect the wolf.
Elkslayer1 posted at 12:25 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Anyone ,ANYONE ... who has spent any sinificant time ,acually IN the Rockies would be able to tell you these animals have made a negative impact . OK .. Mr. bunny hugger liberal guy in your sweat pants in your suburbial mediocracy . YOUR VOTE DONT COUNT .....you do not get a voice .. your lifestyle is not effected .... those of us who live with the problem .Deal with the problem .. Balance you say ... well if balance means 25 -30 years of rehabilitation to the herds of Rocky Mountain Elk , Deer and several other fur bearing mamal herds , are to be completely overlooked , well i say lets move the Wolve into State Park Anytown , Any State and see if you like it .
LOBO WATCH posted at 12:11 pm on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Thanks Becker...all is well now. Early Sunday morning, when I tried making a comment, after about 7 or 8 lines the copy would break up and get scrambled. I heard from one reader from the Lincoln area who had the same problem...and another who could get the comment written...but it would not post.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
longdraw posted at 10:14 am on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Tommy suggested:
Even if wolves don't eat the animals they kill, other animals do, so the kills are not doing to waste. Hunters should really look at themselves because they are hypocrites. They fault the wolves for killing elk and for killing for so called sport when they do the same exact thing and they have the nerve to fault wolves for doing it.
The fact is that hunting is highly regulated. Most states have a 60 to 100 page rule book for hunting. If a hunter were to kill an elk, tear off the nose or rip out the intestine though the rear end and then leave it, it would be a violation of the "waste of game" law, a misdemeanor. Most if not all states have this law, and Alaska probably has the most strict version which dictates the antlers cannot be recovered until the meat is fully recovered... and you must be able to return the meat to your home state without spoilage. Fines for this range between $100 and $1000 depending on the state.
It is the hunter's obligation to ensure the animal is not wasted and nearly all hunters will invest time and resources and any additional help to retreive game. The very name of this law "waste of game" is one reason why you will observe hunters object to the concept that a wolf mortally wounding an animal and leaving it to die in agony is not waste. It is waste.
becker posted at 9:57 am on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
@fanning,
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the pie chart showing the poll results disappearing. You're commenting on that very same poll. If we had taken the poll down, your comment wouldn't be here either. Just click on the "view results" button to the right of the "vote" button to see the results.
@LOBO WATCH,
If you're having problems posting comments, please send me some details about what is getting scrambled in your postings. I haven't seen any examples of it, so it's possible that there's some display issue we don't know about. You can get me at becker@dailychronicle.com.
LOBO WATCH posted at 8:59 am on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
Let's all stop for a minute and question the legality of the entire wolf fiasco.
First, Congress denied USFWS the money for funding the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project. So, where did that government agency happen to find the $30- or $40-millon needed to go into northern British Columbia, Alberta and likely even Saskatchewan to capture a non-indigenous wolf (in the Northern Rockies anyway), care for them, transport them to the U.S., and distribute them into a wildlife rich ecosystem? They did it the old-fashioned government way...they stole the money! That's right, the USFWS embezzled between $60- and $70-million dollars from the excise taxes paid by America's sportsmen on firearms, amunition, archery gear, fishing tackle and other "consumptive" outdoor sports products. And a big chunk of that money (collected under the Pitman-Robertson Act) went to fund the wolf idiocy we're now experiencing. And no one went to jail!!!
Secondly, the Western Wolf Recovery team was "supposed to have" filed Form 3-177 when bringing those wolves into the U.S. (Actually, it is mandated that the form be filed.) But, there is no record of team leader Ed Bangs ever doing so. But then, that would have established a paper trail that would have revealed the true number of wolves brought here...the actual species/subspecies...exactly where those wolves came from...and the cost of the project. Hmmmm...seems a bit of illegal cover up took place - maybe USFWS didn't want to have to explain where they got all the money it took to being those wolves here.
Third, and not necessarily in that numerical order, USFWS outright manipulated wolf science to justify bringing a non-native, non-endangered wolf to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Greenies can argue as much as they want...but the wolves that are now destorying our elk, moose and deer herds are NOT the same wolf that once roamed this region of the country. Now, there are those residents who will testify to the fact that there were several small pockets where native wolves still existed. But, the glory bound "wildlife experts" of the USFWS wanted a faster and more immediate wolf impact in the Northern Rockies. And to accomplish that, they threw all existing North American wolf science right out the window. Prior to these geniuses, wildlife scientists had recognized 24 subspecies of wolves in North America. However, with a questionable population of the subspecies Canis lupus erremotus (the wolf of the northern U.S. Rockies), out of pure convenience USFWS took it upon themselves to reclassify all North American wolves into just five subspecies. And by bringing in a wolf that had never before set foot here (a much larger and more aggressive wolf), those small pockets of native wolves that many feel still existed have since been wiped out by the new Canadian competition, eh! And that is a violation of the Endangered Species Act.
And there are many other aspects of this ecological disaster that are just as shady...just as illegal.
So, why is it that little Judge Donnie Molloy keeps harping on how wolves are being micro managed by individual states? After all, micro management is the backbone of modern wildlfie management - hunting where populations need to be controlled and not hunting where they need to grow. If this U.S. District Court judge wants to play Little Big Man, he's barking up the wrong tree. He should be hauling the likes of Jamie Rappaport Clark (former USFWS Director) and Ed Bangs into his court room...and giving some closure to the theft, lies and deceit which have plagued this project since before the first wolf was released into Yellowstone National Park back in 1995. (If that was indeed the "first wolf" to be released.)
Or, is there an ulterior motive behind the manner in which this judge tends to strongly favor the environmental organizations which continuously intervene in wolf management?
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
American Grandfather posted at 6:34 am on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
An unjust law is a violence against all. The ESA is such a law and the wolf is arguably the most egregious effect of that law to date. Just as wolves will soon be killing rural people, the ESA will surely consume the nation (and all these America-haters as well) as it continues morphing into the Grade - B movie villain that it has been since its inception.
Reality22 posted at 5:12 am on Mon, Aug 16, 2010.
The ruling is joke! How can a boundary be important in the issue when their whole premise for wolves being on the list was because of the Canadian border? This high maintenance non-threatened non-endangered killer has got to go – ruling or no ruling!
Wyoming Lead Cow posted at 11:19 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
Wolves DO sport kill, tommy!! They only eat the "weak and the sick" is THE myth!! Once they came onto the National Elk Refuge, they went nuts and haven't stopped yet! A Refuge officer watched the wolves take down 6 Elk in 15 minutes, ripping noses off and chewing on the rear ends, leaving them to suffer!! The wolves NEVER returned to finish. I never once said I hated wolves, I believe they are overpopulating and need to be managed like other species. YOU must hate Elk, Moose, and Deer, what, THEY aren't as majestic as the beloved wolf? Ever been face to face with a pack of the NEW wolves? Probably not!! These Canadian dogs are 230 lbs + and fearless!! The Northern Rocky Mountain wolf (canis lupus irremotus) WAS smaller and not the tundra oriented animal that is decimating the herds around here!! I'm not afraid of any competition when it comes to filling my freezer for the Winter, as I'm guessing you go to the store for your Winter rations, I hunt for meat, not Antlers! Our Elk, Moose, and Deer will be gone because of the likes of you people not seeing the truth about the wolf that will eat it's way out of house and home, then no more wolves either! What then?? Wake up and see the destruction!!!
NoEconuts posted at 10:37 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
Tommy when you can't win with facts attack the messenger. what a weak side you greenie have. All greenies should be taxed at 90% of their income for 15 years to pay for all the destruction the wolves have done. This money will pay for all the ranchers liverstock all the State income lost to hunting fees, all the hotels, bars, restaurants small business that have lost money due to the FACT the hunters are not coming anymore cause the wolves wipe out the elk. Yes every single one of you raving lunatic wolf lovers should be locked up for public safety reason. Now Tommy try some facts for a change oh that right all you have is myths fairy tale and misinformation What else is new anti American wolf lovers only go on childish emotions not facts.
FreeeCoyote posted at 9:55 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
The Lacey Act clearly states all the laws that have been broken by Ed Bang,and the USFWS. Molloys' decision clearly shows the abuse that is served up by the Endangered Species Act.
90,000 Dead Elk , the Gardiner Elk Hunt cancelled ? I say shut down Yellowstone , go in clean it up , then sit down and start over . Tourism has ran with it's head down thru all this controversy ,managing to avoid any fault in this, until now !
Tourism is the reason the West has been Assulted . Ignorant Tourist on vacation signed a petition in Yellowstone in 1993 which passed a death sentence on our wildlife then drove home to watch it on TV. There should be toll Gates on every road coming into Idaho ,Mont and Wyo which charge a fee for Tourism and double if they are headed for Yellowstone.W hat tourist have done to us is Unforgivable, what they have done to our wildlife is a SIN !!!
LOBO WATCH posted at 8:59 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
WyoBob;
I keep waiting for the "proven" science the greenie side keeps harping about. All I have heard from them is more of the same lies and baloney about how wolves will fit right in with other wildlife...how they will reach that natural balance within the ecosystem...how much they will improve the quality of our wildlife populations.
Let's face it...elk ghosts do not reproduce.
Wolves have one purpose and one purpose only...and that is to kill.
Our greenie biologists have tried to script a new role for the wolf, but it fails to follow the lines they wrote out for it. Wolves simply keep on killing and killing and killing. Perhaps these "new wave" wildlife managers (who know nothing about wolves) should have spent more time studying the impact wolves have had on wildlife, livestock and humans elsewhere in the world before dumping those non-native and non-endangered Candaian wolves here. Perhaps our lemming public needs to do the same, and stop supporting organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, which milks suckers out of millions of dollars every year. These organizations are only in this battle for the money. They have not spent one penny on true wildlife conservation.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
tree hugers suck posted at 8:49 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about these stupid wolfs. Get rid of them. I would love for any of you tree hugers to go ranch where these stupid dogs run and live with them. Live with them while your kids play and get stalked. Go pick up your own scattered remains of your livestock. Better yet go to your local auction and go buy one cow. Then let a wolf kill it. See where your at now. See how much you love your precious wolves. You stupid tree hugers just watch nature roam go and watch it get killed and watch your weak stomachs vomit what you just ate. This is why our country is going down the tubes because you sorry people.
swbuckmaster posted at 8:46 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
there is no reason we should not be able to hunt a non native no endangered Canadian wolf.
WyoBob posted at 4:38 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
Packmentality,
When was the last time you spoke with Dr. Mech or anyone else pertaining to wolves? Obviously, you act like you know more than you do. I like how your only response is juvenile name calling. You and your underlings may try to marginalize me and accuse me of being extreme but in so doing you only further erode your own creditability.
Tommy,
You have no creditability if you think packmentality has demonstrated even an ounce of common sense. Keep up your dribble.
Wolves are now exceeding the density levels that wolf experts thought were healthy. Increasing their numbers will only result in more and more conflicts. Wolves will ultimately lose as they can not help but do what they are designed to do; kill things and make babies. I don't hate wolves for being wolves, I only recognized them for what they are; predators. Those that believe the myth of wildlife management created by Walt Disney think they actually manage wildlife and think that the North American Model of Wildlife Management doesn't work. Uncontrolled expansion of wolves will only further deplete wildlife resources, destroy state economies, and ultimately lead to fewer and fewer wolves.
LOBO WATCH posted at 3:13 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
Seems the Bozeman Chronicle is making is difficult for those who are sick and tired of wolves to post a comment here. I've tried several times, and everything gets scrambled. I've also heard from a number of others who have experienced the same thing.
But, the poll is starting to show how Montanans and other sportsmen really feel...its time to have a serious reduction in wolf numbers - whether little Judge Donnie Molloy thinks so or not.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
fanning posted at 2:02 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
Funny,
Last night the Bozo Comical posted a pie graph that stated the vote was tied 1,100 to 1,100.
Now that sportsmen hit cyber space to rally the troops the vote counter was taken down.
The Bozeman Chronical is a 15 year accessory in the sterilization of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Right Scott Mc Million?
tommy posted at 12:55 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
To the next point the Canadian wolf has had a hundread years of evolution in there home range hunting Deer and Elk. Deer and Elk have not had a 100 years of avoiding the wolves so the wolves have a distinct advantage over the local Deer and Elk. You can't tell me that animals in the great white north are not more hardy and have better evolution
What an idiotic and clueless comment Jay. Deer and elk have not had 100 years of avoiding elk? Where do you get your incorrect information? Hey buddy, wolves and deer and elk have been co-existing together for thousands upon thousands of years. My god, how clueless and incorrect you are. It's not even funny how much you have no idea about. Get a clue, please Jay.
tommy posted at 12:37 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
Wolves do not kill for SPORT. That is a myth. Wolves kill to eat. Experts have witnessed wolves kill animals and than leave only to come back later on to finish the kill they made. Even if wolves don't eat the animals they kill, other animals do, so the kills are not doing to waste. Hunters should really look at themselves because they are hypocrites. They fault the wolves for killing elk and for killing for so called sport when they do the same exact thing and they have the nerve to fault wolves for doing it. Bunch of hypocries. Wyoming lead cow, these wolves are very much native. This non native wolf theory only comes from the likes of people like you, ones that dislike wolves. Ask any biologist if these wolves are not native and you might be surprised to find out that biologists will admit these wolves are very much native. I think the reason why you haters continue to peddle this lie and misinformation is due to the fact that you dislike wolves and don't want them in your hunting spots hunting the animals you yourselves want to hunt. You hate competition and that is just one reason why you dislike wolves. Jay, I posted a comment and didn't see it, so it again and didn't see my comment and than I finally saw my comment come up. You are still clueless.
jayrod9528 posted at 12:27 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
Tommy you sound like your repeating yourself. You should learn to copy and paste better or come up with you own argument rather that taking someone elses and posting it on here.
Wyoming Lead Cow posted at 12:19 pm on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
This wolf is NOT a native species, the Canadian is what the introduced, the Rocky Mountain Timber was what was here! There were still native wolves in Dubois, WY., until the Lamar Valley pack came in and killed them all, now the more aggressive wolf is killing pets and livestock, on top of all the other Majestic wildlife they are taking out! If you live in the middle of them, you see what they are doing to the Elk, Moose, and Deer, if you don't , you sure do love those wolves!! Wolves have reached the population goals in the 3 states, MT, ID, WY. PERIOD!! Time to manage them before we have to reintroduce Moose, Elk, And Deer. The Brucellosis BS, is just that!! Not one case has been proven to be connected with transmission from Buffalo or Elk!! The ranchers need to vaccinate their cattle for the disease, and not try to trap all the Buff and Elk to eradicate the disease!! RIDICULOUS!! That's like trapping and testing all the raccoons, and all other carriers for rabies, instead of vaccinating!!!!! Teddy Roosevelt was a hunter and closed the park down only after he was done hunting it!! Sportsmen are the ones paying into conservation, not the tourist coming to see the wolf, not the backpackers, bicyclists, rafters, climbers, so on and so on!! How many conservation stamps do non~sportsmen buy? NONE!!!!
climber posted at 11:42 am on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
packmentality, why would you say that "Wolves, contrary to popular belief amongst the lay person, do NOT hunt for fun or sport."? If you truly are into wildlife management, then you should know better. You are probably the only wildlife managers/biologists that doesn't know that wolves kill for sport. Every biologist I know, knows they do.
I'll ask an easy question for you. I'm very curios about your excuse for the wolves on this.Please go to this link: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_5ff01772-938f-11de-9aca-001cc4c03286.html and read about the 120 sheep killed in 1 night by wolves. Explain to me the mindset of these wolves on why they would kill 120 sheep, and not eat a single one.
tommy posted at 10:58 am on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
wyobob, you are nothing more than an armchair biologist. Jay, you are clearly completely clueless, so if will do you some good to keep your trap shut. packmentality is the only one using some sense here. A few things I would like to point on, these wolves that are here ARE NOT CANADIAN wolves. They are grey wolves and these are the SAME wolves that have been crossing the border on their own from Canada for years and years. These wolves are native to the northern rockies. Another claim I like to debunk is these wolves as being more aggressive which is a ridiculous claim to make. All wolves are capable of being aggressive, some more than others. The hunter is not the only true conservationist. Hunters only care about making sure there are plenty of animals to shoot. You want to be a true conservationist, shoot animals with your camera and let the animal keep its life.wyobob, you are nothing more than an armchair biologist. Jay, you are clearly completely clueless, so if will do you some good to keep your trap shut. packmentality is the only one using some sense here. A few things I would like to point on, these wolves that are here ARE NOT CANADIAN wolves. They are grey wolves and these are the SAME wolves that have been crossing the border on their own from Canada for years and years. These wolves are native to the northern rockies. Another claim I like to debunk is these wolves as being more aggressive which is a ridiculous claim to make. All wolves are capable of being aggressive, some more than others. The hunter is not the only true conservationist. Hunters only care about making sure there are plenty of animals to shoot. You want to be a true conservationist, shoot animals with your camera and let the animal keep its life.
tommy posted at 10:55 am on Sun, Aug 15, 2010.
wyobob, you are nothing more than an armchair biologist. Jay, you are clearly completely clueless, so if will do you some good to keep your trap shut. packmentality is the only one using some sense here. A few things I would like to point on, these wolves that are here ARE NOT CANADIAN wolves. They are grey wolves and these are the SAME wolves that have been crossing the border on their own from Canada for years and years. These wolves are native to the northern rockies. Another claim I like to debunk is these wolves as being more aggressive which is a ridiculous claim to make. All wolves are capable of being aggressive, some more than others. The hunter is not the only true conservationist. Hunters only care about making sure there are plenty of animals to shoot. You want to be a true conservationist, shoot animals with your camera and let the animal keep its life.
NoEconuts posted at 9:18 pm on Sat, Aug 14, 2010.
The Moose population in Yellowstone National Park trend count shows a
decrease to almost zero.
(Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
Moose haters should get more wolves in American maybe you can help wipe out
all the moose in the lower 48 good job.
That is the problem with the truth soon or later you all have to grow up
and face the facts.
The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky has
dropped from around 1,048 to 338 in 2008.
(Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
• The Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has dropped from 700 to 108 in
2008.
(Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
• The calf survival rate for those same elk herds mentioned above, where
wolves (and bears) are present, is extremely low amounting to as little as 10% or less recruitment or survival rate. Nearly any wildlife professional will tell you this is an unacceptable recruitment or survival rate.
Acceptable wildlife science tells us that a 25-40% survival rate is
necessary for herd sustainability. Studies show that each wolf kills up to 23 elk from November through April; that equates to up to 40,000 elk killed in six months. This number does not include those elk killed for food by wolves from May through October. While the number of elk killed per wolf from May through October is less than the number from November through April, it is still considerable; and that is just the elk killed for food. These numbers do not account for those elk simply killed by
wolves (surplus killing) and yes, that does happen. Nowhere near the majority of these elk kills are simply the sick and the old.
NoEconuts posted at 9:17 pm on Sat, Aug 14, 2010.
BTW exposing the lie that wolves are safe around people you can check out www.savewesternwildlife.org forums for a list of attacks here they are.
Wolf Attack Canada
Wolf attack has sides lining up again over wolf control
WOLVES KILL CARETAKER IN A CANADIAN FOREST AND WILDLIFE RESERVE
Child killed in wolf attack in Russia's Far East
Georgian villagers armed for self-defenses against wolves
Afghan Wolf Attacks
Homeless man eaten by wolves in Iran
India Fighting Plague Of Man-Eating Wolves
Wolf Attacks in Georgia Lead Villagers to Seek License to Kill
Wolf pack kills moose calf
Wolf Attacks Spur MN Rancher To Sell
Wolf Encounters Lead To Fear In Ely
Rabid Wolf Attacks Hunter
Boy is injured by wolf dog used for teaching
Beast at Large: Wolf attacks bring fear to villagers
Attacking wolf pack encourages heightened pet owner awareness
Wolf hybrid kills grandson, 5
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW CAN KILL YOU!!! Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!
Port Moody kayaker fights off starving, predatory wolf
B.C. senior sustains bruises in wolf attack
Six injured in rare wolf attack
Dog saves family from wolf attack
Ontario man killed in wolf attack, coroner's jury finds
More Wolf Attacks in Idaho And Minnesota
4 wolves viciously attacked and killed school teacher 2010
Can we stop lying about wolves don't attack people. I am searching for more attacks that I know of like the guy in Wisconsin had to use a chain saw to keep a pack of wolves off him. All kinds of attacks you never hear about. The Eco Nazi play games with the search engines to keep you from finding out the truth about wolves. That is why I am posting the attacks here so we can keep our own records proving all the lies the Eco Nazi's tell the public about the "so called" rare wolf attacks. Just reading that list does it look rare to you? Only a fool would believe these are the only attacks that have happen to people! How many more never get reported or changed to a different animal due to the Parent worrying about going to jail for saving their child from a bloodthirsty killer wolf attack.
NoEconuts posted at 9:10 pm on Sat, Aug 14, 2010.
From the book Wolves of North America Pg 224-225
Catlin who in his ' North American Indians' gives an account of one of these attacks he had witness. We discovered at a distance a huge Bull (buffalo) encircled with a gang of white wolves.We rode in found to our great surprise that the animal had made great resistance, his EYE BEING ENTIRELY EATEN OUT OF HIS HEAD, THE GRISTLE OF HIS NOSE MOSTLY GONE, HIS TONGUE HALF EATEN OFF, AND THE SKIN AND FLESH OF HIS LEGS TORN ALMOST LITERALLY INTO STRINGS. ( STILL ALIVE FIGHTING HIS TORMENTORS.)
It takes a very sick perverted sadistic type of person to want our wildlife to die like this.
WyoBob posted at 12:59 pm on Sat, Aug 14, 2010.
packmentality,
I am unsure which field you work in but as far as wildlife management that is my field. You either in denial or you are ignorant of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. The U.S. model is the envy of the World. If you truly understood this you would understand why North America has such a rich and abundant species of wildlife.
You continue to accuse others of being ignorant or uneducated on this issue. Even with the hunts allowed last fall in Idaho and Montana, wolf populations increased. Wolves are far in excess of what the experts continue to say can be sustained. Wolf densities which exceed 6 per 1000 elk are destroying wildlife populations. Without adequate reproduction and recruitment of young, these populations will eventually become too old to successfully reproduce. When that happens, even the adult segments of these herds will begin to fall out.
Look around at all of the behavioral changes wildlife professionals and enthusiasts are starting to see. Do you just think it is coincidental that grizzly bears are starting to turn up in areas not considered traditional grizzly bear habitat? In the mid-west, black bears are starting to exhibit the same responses as wolf densities become to excessive. Bears in general, like to avoid conflict. While most adult bears are not threatened by wolves, they do annoy them. People like you whom refuse to acknowledge wolves are exceeding recovery goals do more harm to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the species they claim to be advocating protection for is hollow.
You asked which wolf expert I know. I know very few. I have spoken at length with Dr. David Mech, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Charles Kay, King Edward (Bangs). In addition, I have spoken with several state wildlife biologists and wildlife managers from Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan. I have spoken with ranchers and outfitters as well. You may not like what they are saying but it is consistent throughout. I know that extremes exist on both sides; however, I also know that the tide is beginning to change among the public in general.
Where is your evidence that wolves have "helped stabilized the region"? Where is you science to demonstrate that eco-tourism is educating "the public wildlife and their benefit"? Another false statement you made without any science to back up your claim "Opening up a hunt against this type of predator threatens their existence as well as OUR wilderness." Seems, just as all of the wolf experts have said numerous times, hunting wolves will not threaten recovery objectives.
In closing, you may perceive that I am playing. This is not a game to me. This is the biggest theft of wildlife resources from the states since wildlife managers began protecting wildlife and true conservation began. The abundant wildlife populations we now enjoy today are the direct result of hunters/anglers putting their money, energy, and efforts into conservation. Environmentalists that continue to litigate do it not for the wildlife they claim to value but for the cash cow they have became via our courts. It is your lies and misinformation which shall be exposed when the truth is finally told.
packmentality posted at 12:00 pm on Sat, Aug 14, 2010.
@Jay..., I like the last word dig.* LOL
Since I work in this field, I'm fairly confident in my analogies. The 1500 have NOT be substantiated as "only" wolf kills, so that's where your debate fell apart for me.
Canada (Alaska), have a heartier animal by region alone, I can't deny, but has little to do with aggression as you used in your example a post or two ago referring to wolf kills.
Wolves, contrary to popular belief amongst the lay person, do NOT hunt for fun or sport.
Cattle that have been attacked and left were done so because of a variety of reasons. Many were found NOT to be killed by Wolfs at all.
They will come back to kills to feed at alternate times, get run off by other predators that also don't finish the meat, or simply get spooked.
Again Jay, read other reports to get both views, and remember that we need to have predator control, but they do cull themselves at a decent rate. About 20%.
It's the education of the public, to understand how to coexist as well as recognize behavior, rather than spread myth.
Proper authorities need to make those calls, not the political parties, which IS what happened when they were taken off the list, and allowed to be hunted indiscriminately. That's where science was ignored, and wild life balance again suffered. It's now science that got them protected until proper procedures are in place. Isn't that agreeable?
I hunt for food Jay, not for sport.
Cheers'
jayrod9528 posted at 10:50 pm on Fri, Aug 13, 2010.
Pack, you are correct that some people may want total annihilation and there are people who want wolves to be in every town in the country. I try not to focus on the two extremes of the debat and rather down the center. I hardly belive that the capital press is proaganda. By the way the 1500 sheep was not one night it was since they reintroduced them in the 1990's. To the next point the Canadian wolf has had a hundread years of evolution in there home range hunting Deer and Elk. Deer and Elk have not had a 100 years of avoiding the wolves so the wolves have a distinct advantage over the local Deer and Elk. You can't tell me that animals in the great white north are not more hardy and have better evolutionary skills. I have seen 60-80 lbs Coyotes in British Columbia that is crazy our coyotes down here are maybe 20-40lbs. The ruminant animals in Canada are bigger and stronger aswell. I have spent most of my life in the wilderness of Washington and Oregon. I would love to see wolves out in the wild however I would hate for them to become like the Cougar in Washington that are getting out of controll due to strict hunting regulations. Look I guess what I'm trying to say is give hunting a chance. I do enjoy the debate. Remember without debate we are all just servants. Thanks for the challenges, your wrong, but none the less. Thanks.
packmentality posted at 9:35 pm on Fri, Aug 13, 2010.
Jay,
Calling someones comments, ignorant isn't name calling, it's fact.
The story of the 1500 sheep is not only false, but unsubstantiated. You know that.
The common misinformation that wolves kill for sport is also false, and proof you know NOTHING about their behavior, in which I have studied. I have spent a great many years doing so, and have been in back country of Northern America all my life!
How about you?
Furthermore, another false statement is about the Canadian Wolf...,eh'
You misspeak.
This species of wolf, is the same species of wolf that traversed the Rockies before their annihilation in the 1900's. The same species. Also a fact that has been stated already, and so the reason for my passion.
You either know the info you are stating is opinion only, not scientific fact, or you are unaware of the truth, and are led by peer pressure to go along???
I have used the word ignorance, and I apologize, but I meant it as ignorant to the facts. But I understand how it came off. No Ivory tower hear Jay.
Propaganda by newspapers should not be your only reference, and the standard replies you have listed have been repeated for years, with NO basis in fact, but in rumor and opinion,.
Listen, I'm trying to work for both sides, but education is key, and I hope you take the time to investigate both sides. I respect your obvious passion on the subject, and I'm not trying to hard sell you. I have realized many people aren't going to change no matter what. I hope that's not you.
I have heard and read many reports of Ranchers and residents wanting total annihilation, so I don't know how you missed that, if you have really been following this?
The report of feral dogs has not only been reported on by numerous sources, but by Wyoming and Montana Ranchers. Why would they make it up?
Enjoyed the debate Jay, no hard feelings..., eh'
jayrod9528 posted at 6:53 pm on Fri, Aug 13, 2010.
The funny thing is packmentality is that you don't listen to any other arguments. You talk of ignorance (name calling again) and how the anti-wolf people don't listen to your position. I would say you are the one who does not listen. I do no know of anyone who wants to wipe the wolf of the face of the earth we just want it managed properly. The other issue I have is that the breed of wolf they introduced is the Canadian Gray Wolf. The problem with this is like most animals from Canada they are more agressive due to harsher living conditions from their native range. This is not my opinion it is fact. The wolfs are killing for sport not for food. In the capital press there was a story of a sheep rancher who lost 1500 animals due to wolfs now his costs have gone up not just in the loss of his animals but, in costs he has had to live with to protect his sheep now such as dogs for protection as well as more man power. By the way his sheep were not killed by dogs up in the wilderness where he grazes his sheep they were killed by wolfs. 1500 is alot of sheep by the way alot of the sheep are not even consumed by the wolfs they just kill for sport. Packmentality you sound like you have lots of passion for this subject and it is good to have debate, but I think you should spend some time and talk to the people that this issue really affects. By the way do you live in a area with wolfs or are you just casting stones from your ivory tower?
packmentality posted at 4:24 pm on Fri, Aug 13, 2010.
Wow, WyoBob..., I was waiting for the punch line!
Are you kidding!?
The U.S. Is no model for wildlife management in the lower 48, especially out west WyoBob!
The wolves have not reached recovery goals, and while this hunt was allowed, the numbers have dropped greater than expected.
What is in need, is education Bob. Stop with the same old tow the line misinformation, and to say that Wolf experts were ignored is ridiculous!
They were only ignored when your local states ignored science and allowed slaughters to occur.
What wolf expert do you know ??? Yea right!
Your post is the problem Bob. You pull the wool over ones eyes who doesn't know any better in to believing your ignorance, then it starts to become fact to those who are not in the know.
What outfitter or Ranch do you work for, because you are talking blind on this subject.
The wolves helped stabilize the region, but got in the humans way of making money.
The smart people are utilizing eco- tourism to educate the public wildlife and their benefit. That's why people aren't buying your B/S anymore Bob.
It just amazes me that there are those who just refuse to understand science.
State and local wildlife management have had their issues too, but were also forced to followe outdated tactics by a lazy Gov't. on all levels.
Remember Bob, many of us are for proper management and support Ranchers, but this needs to be re-structured so all can have balance.
Opening up a hunt against this type of predator threatens their existence as well as OUR wilderness.
But thanks for playing Bob!
WyoBob posted at 1:31 pm on Fri, Aug 13, 2010.
Wolves have clearly met and exceed recovery goals throughout the U.S. The decision to re-list wolves ignores the wolf experts, as well as state and federal wildlife managers. Wolves must be managed by state wildlife professionals not by the judicial branch of government. This train wreck threatens the North American Model of Wildlife Management. This model is the envy of the World. It is what has lead to abundant populations of wildlife, including predators.
packmentality posted at 7:51 am on Fri, Aug 13, 2010.
Well put Wolf21M
It's a shame they don't WANT to recognize the obvious.
The winds have changed, and hopefully for the better.
Wolf 21M posted at 10:05 pm on Thu, Aug 12, 2010.
Waterboy, your arguments, if you want to call them such, just don't hold water. How can you say that eco-tourism in WY, MT, ID, is a bogus argument for wolves? Even without the Montana report, all you have to do is spend time in Yellowstone and look at the huge crowds that are specifically in the Park to see wolves. All you have to do is talk to the gateway community businesses; they'll tell you how beneficial the wolves are to their economies. Your tactics are getting old, if not boring. Wolf-haters typically side-step pro-wolf data instead of actually addressing the argument with you own data that refutes it. You talk in generalities, and assumptions that work when you discuss the "wolf problem" with your cronies, but don't really debate the issue. Besides wolves stimulating the economy of the Rockies, you should also know that wolves are responsible for less than 1% of livestock mortalies. Many, many more sheep and cows are killed by feral dogs annually instead of wolves. Instead of just throwing out worn out arguments with no substance, you need to possibly look at the truth, and see if what you say holds water, or if it's just hot air that's loaded in mindless hatred for a noble animal.
packmentality posted at 2:56 pm on Thu, Aug 12, 2010.
@Longdraw
As to the debate on Predation, it seems to be something that has been observed by people in the field, as well as Ranchers, and the numbers on predation of wolves over/under others was their observation.
My point would be that when the wolves were re-introduced back to their territory, the land and it's animals benefitted. That was fact.
Humans complained because along with loosing heads to existing predators, another was added. The myth that Elk have disappeared is just that!
The Elk have learned to adapt, thereby become a bit more work to locate. Organizations out west have confirmed this, not just those of us who wish for proper management of wildlife.
To the Bear with spaghetti in his scat. That doesn't surprise me longdraw.
The animals we see in residential areas are the ones that can't compete against the other more dominant ones for primary hunting grounds.
Since Humans continue to encroach, the circle of wilderness has decreased, pushing those less dominant ones out to the border of our neighborhoods.
Humans are the ones then making it worse by treating them like pets and feeding them, leaving garbage unsecured, and habituating them to our scent and creating a opportunistic animal.
I know that that's the reality, and management needs to make that call at that time.
Allowing the average hunter to get a wolf tag and indiscriminately kill predators (wolf) was reckless and led to more wolves than counted, to be killed.
Listen to some of these ranchers, and they say they want ALL wolves dead.
That's insane, and against natural selection of our ecosystem, and what keeps it balanced. That's like saying sharks kill people, so lets kill them all!
Geez, with that line of thinking, why don't murderers, rapist, and pedophiles get the same treatment. Won't hear a peep out of me on that one!
Responsible management with humane practices along with doing away with myths, and re-educate the public about cohabitation is where I'm at.
Longdraw, I appreciate and respect your opinion, and hope somewhere in the middle we may agree.
Cheers'
longdraw posted at 10:54 am on Thu, Aug 12, 2010.
The concept that more animals are taken by bear, cougar, and stray dog than wolf is debatable. There are a few important factors in that phrasing. Over the last fifty years, there haven't been many wolves. Therefore by local historical record we can presume where wolves were not present, other predators had higher kill counts. Animals meaning prey animals is another concern. These species will take smaller non-game prey species (animals) and by the number such a claim could be supported. The average American unintentionally consumes a net two pounds of insects a year. Counting food source by item, Americans eat more individual insects than individual mammals.
Bears are like pigs and eat just about anything they can find. Here in town, there's spaghetti in their scat the day after the trash is collected, ash berries, apples, and any other opportunistic food. Cougars and wolves are more focused on prey species. However, a primary difference between cougars and wolves is that it is much easier for wolves to take larger game in greater numbers because of their social behavior.
Several farmers in Oregon's northeast counties (Wallowa, Union, and Baker) have been employing recommended tactics to deter wolves including immediately burying dispatched, maimed dogs and livestock wounded from attack, fence flagging, and noise deterrants. Even with these measures, they are having a difficult time with the wolves. The urban residents of Portland and Eugene several hundred miles away are loathe to care recommending only to give them cash for the loss from money that the state doesn't have, the federal government is borrowing, or the non-profits are fleecing from the taxpayers.
This cycle is unsustainable. If we are to have wolves, we must start with small populations in carefully controlled situations. This is contrary to the recent decision to defer management.
Another thing that people in the urban setting have a hard time understanding is that while money is appropriate for settling a debt, it is not a satisfactory substitute for a life or way of life lost.
packmentality posted at 10:39 pm on Wed, Aug 11, 2010.
@Jayrod,
the Gov't has monies set aside for programs such as these. They have been in place, but poorly run. Do some homework if you are planning on spreading anymore false statements, will ya'
There are more animals taken by Bear, Mt. Lion and stray dog than wolves. Where you aware of this?
This was taken by a study out of Wyoming/Montana I believe.
Please read my post, as well as the others who give you real facts, not opinion.
I support the American Rancher/Farmer 100%, but doesn't mean they can do as they please.
The several farmers who have employed alternative measures to deter predators have been successful. Some even stated they have received harassment from others for not siding with them. Imagine that Jay!
And Jay, you might want to heed your own advice when it comes to name calling, but I will apologize for my end regardless. I came on here to give my opinion to those willing to debate the subject, and have been called a hippie.
I guess the point is proper management rather than a witch hunt.
Which is exactly what happened when the wolves were hunted.
Happen to catch some of the colorful commentary from the hunters...?
Nut jobs was a compliment!
jayrod9528 posted at 6:29 pm on Wed, Aug 11, 2010.
Packmentality, I think it is great when people start calling names it really shows there character. Wolfs are not always a problem I agree with you there are plenty of farmers and ranchers outside of Yellow stone who have never had a problem with wolves but, does that mean that wolves are not a problem anywhere? Wolfs do cause problems in some places. So what should we do then? All the pro wolf people say "no problem we will just pay the rancher back". Whos money are we to use to pay back the rancher? Ohh I know we will use the governments money it's free! As you said we need to manage it properly that means asking the people who studdy thease animals and their impact on the eco system the Judge who relisted the wolf was not listening to the Scientists the judge was listing to the pro wolf lobby.
packmentality posted at 12:01 pm on Wed, Aug 11, 2010.
@sporting man..., and where in past post does anyone put humans before animals???
You people live in LA La land with your babble!
Quit making up garbage, enough mis information from you. Will someone with some common sense who lives and hunts responsibly from these parts speak up please!
The wolf hating toothless wonders are well represented!
packmentality posted at 8:56 am on Wed, Aug 11, 2010.
My suggestion is to really read the post that I, and others who are for the re installation of this law. No one is saying not to manage wildlife. We are saying to manage it properly! Not for political reasons, as some of you who repeat the same misinformation about the big bad wolf!
Sporting man...nature is cruel, and most animals suffer when being taken by another. What's your point? This makes the wolf dangerous to us? This makes them deserving of cruelty from humans?
You all seem to be leaving out the nut jobs who lay traps, poison bait on trails, which by the way, were killing all the other animals as well as domestic dogs, and indiscriminately hunt and kill ANY wolf, of ANY age.
This is what has been happening, especially since the hunts were allowed.
The number of wolves taken in a management situation should be handled by proper authorities in conjunction with Biologist with NO vail of secrecy.
NOT by the average hunter, by recent accounts, the irresponsible hunters!
Not knowing what you are doing, and the effects of these actions have really taken the number of wolves lower than expected since many packs were annihilated or fractured by killing the Alphas, thereby loosing the pups too.
Average hunter that I meet in the field seems to have the wildlife management ideals of the early 1900's, not the 21st century!
Read my FIRST post, and tell me if you agree or not..., but use REAL facts, not what your grand daddy passed down.
The number of wolves that can coexist with humans could be much greater, if people choosing to live in predator country stopped acting like the land is only theirs, and not being conservation minded enough to understand the balance needed in a healthy ecosystem.
The ways of sport hunting for pleasure are out dated.
Hunt with your family for food on the table is a life long bond to be cherished.
No argument. But to kill for the sake of killing, without science is beyond destructive.
Stop the apples & oranges argument, especially the mosquito one, because that was as lame as the others, and talk facts.
Sporting_Man posted at 1:30 pm on Tue, Aug 10, 2010.
Regarding who is driving the policy - that is the problem... It is up to real science, independent of any interest, that should prevail. Right now, it is a crazy pro-wolf agenda that is prevalent. Wolves are well known killers and do it in a most gruesome way. Those animals feel pain when being killed by wolves, don't they? Someone in previous posts put humans among other animals - well that is also problem, humans are not animals... This is not about having wolves or not, this is about managing them when the time comes, and it is now. Hunting has been there for as long as wolves and humans were. For thrills too!
waterboy posted at 1:07 pm on Tue, Aug 10, 2010.
cccccc wrote "Wolves and herd animals have lived together for over 10,000 years in the Northern Rockies. No one managed them and they achieved a balance that lasted for years until man decided to change the natural ratios"
You might want to study up on your Native American history. If you think they didn't have an impact on wildlife populations or the habitat then you either lack common sense or still hold the old european view of a primitive and simple people.
There is significant evidence to indicate that Native Americans not only understood how to survive off this land, they also knew how to maximize its potential to fit their needs.
It would be nice if the pro-wolf crowd came up with an original arguement for once. The fact that you opt to negate history, genetic uniqueness, economic impacts, and social impacts purely on the basis of serving your utopian visions is just.....well its amazing. It's amazingly fanatical.
One last thing, please continue touting the $35 million annual ecotourism 'profit' due to wolves being in YNP, per the UM study. Such bolstering and manipulation of the report to serve your agenda only continues to serve the image that you are truely full of ignorance. Try actually reading the study before running your mouths. $35 million dollars annually spread across three states......if you knew anything about economics and tourism you'd realize that figure makes the economical 'profit' from wolves a mere minnow in a large pond. Try deducting the annual expenses from having wolves in the region then tell all of us what the real net profit/loss is.
I'm done. please continue with your nonsense.
Tom Marine posted at 10:28 am on Tue, Aug 10, 2010.
While I respect the comment by Longdraw it is pretty obvious that science doesn't drive much of anything related to wildlife in this state or Idaho & Wyoming for that matter. It is the Ranchers & hunters who drive the policy even though I am as much an owner of the PUBLIC land as they are.
To prove my point they put down buffaloe with Brucillos that wonder outside of the Park but not Elk that have it. Do you really have to ask why. Elk have a high percentage infection rate. It is the hunting lobby not science. For that matter it is not clear that Buffaloe contaminate cattle, it was clear that the Buffaloe were infected by cattle. No offense to you folks but your legislature, and state power structures are totally influenced by the Ranchers and hunting lobby even though your vote count indicates there are many others with a different view.
longdraw posted at 7:51 am on Tue, Aug 10, 2010.
It doesn't make much sense to defer management of the wolf population. Seeking an overpopulation of wolves is not good for the wolves and certainly does not make management of other species game or non-game any easier or less expensive.
By establishing a quota for last year's wolf hunt, the state must have consulted professional biologists in the process. Therefore, this decision is political posturing which will benefit the lawyers representing the non-profits already leaching money from the taxpayers and individual contributors to sue ourselves.
From a point of reason, the distinct population arguement doesn't work well. There are plenty wolves in Canada, the species is in no risk of extinction. There are also plenty mosquitoes there. Yet we spray for mosquitoes in urban environments. If we use the same argument for distinct populations of mosquitoes as we do for wolves, shall we let the swarms return to our urban environments just because mosquitoes are threatened in our towns and cities?
Moderation and balance is key. Some wolves, well planned, well calibrated is what we should seek. This attitude of hog-wild wolf introduction enthusiasm and deferred management is careless. I doubt that any competent conservationist would recommend deferred management at the scale the size of a western state.
Regarding the touchy-feely comments about wolves having senses. So do deer, sheep, birds, rats, fish, spiders, and so forth. What's the point? That's the way of nature. Our species is very greedy, but we are also a part of nature. Do not be duped into believing wolves are to be befriended. If your car has an "I break for wolves" sticker, best error on the safe side and keep your hands in the window.
packmentality posted at 7:49 am on Tue, Aug 10, 2010.
unfortunately, people like jayrod and green hunter lack real knowledge. They repeat the same uneducated facts to the point where it's cloned behavior.
Darknessdt made great points, scientific points.
That's the problem here.
This wasn't handled scientifically, but by political decisions made by greed.
While some "American sportsman" as jayrod puts it, may be responsible hunters. Many are not. The funds to preserve wildlife are definitely not only secured by hunters. That's the biggest mis-information out there.
You don't have to be a "hippie" as green hunter argues.., I can't believe he used the term...lame much..., to have an interest in seeing the land managed better.
And if he thinks it HAS been managed by humans well. Then he's a moron!
Take a look at arial photos of western regions before the wolves were reintroduced, compared to now.
World of difference Einstein. That's largely to do with addition of apex predator.
While I expect arguments from the other side, it would be interesting to hear a original thought, rather than repeating the same old uneducated views.
I believe in hunting for food responsibly, but not for sport.
That's where this all has gone down hill.
Unfortunately it seems many out west who have common sense, are not heard over the din of the morons who continue to turn a blind eye to science, and progress.
jayrod9528 posted at 7:38 am on Tue, Aug 10, 2010.
cccccc and darknessdt you are both correct that man has made some terible mistakes in conservation, however why do you think that we still have some of the animals you listed below? Because we have decided to hunt them in a responsible manner that does not mean shooting from helicopters or anyother un ethical shooting. Do you people do not know the differance between hunters and poachers? Teddy Roosevelt was a hunter and conservationist who is a model for what the American hunter is today. We as humans have caused a problem. This does not mean that we just let the problem go un managed.
cccccc posted at 12:37 am on Tue, Aug 10, 2010.
Wolves and herd animals have lived together for over 10,000 years in the Northern Rockies. No one managed them and they achieved a balance that lasted for years until man decided to change the natural ratios. We all know how well that turned out. Protect the wolves and allow a normal prey/ predator ratio to re-establish , and we will see vegetation rebound in overgrazed areas.
darknessdt posted at 11:48 pm on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
Jayrod, do you really think hunters are the responsible parties here? Why are the bison protected? The so-called "American hunter" is one of the reasons the wolves are protected. Why is it considered "sport" to shoot animals from a helicopter? Wolves are a part of the natural ecosystem that humans have screwed up. Deer are more proific in the suburbs now because man has taken away their natural habitat. Mountain lions prey on deer on the daylight hours because we've made the deer accept our habitat and hours. They feed any time of day now, rather than being diurnal. The mountain lions now have begun to hunt in the daylight hours and it's a direct result of human intervention. Civilization has led to a showdown between our natural resources (animals) and how we decide to deal with them. If we are irresponsible and decide to eradicate them, our lives will be forever changed...and not for the better. Can anyone of us imagine a world without polar bears, wolves, tigers, gorillas, snow leopards and blue whales? Please try to change your thinking about hunting and allow the animals to live. Teddy Roosevelt started the National Parks and wanted the land and animals left alone...why are we killing them now?
greenhunter posted at 9:29 pm on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
Jayrod you are forgeting the real victim and that is the Wolf . Wolfs are just like people they are happy and sad and feel pain just like us. They love their pups as we love our childeren..........Sorry I could only keep up the hippie bs for so long. Wolves need to be managed just like all animals including humans.
jayrod9528 posted at 9:08 pm on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
All I have read here is ignorance. The only way to save a species is by choosing to hunt it in a responsible manner. The only true conservationist is the American hunter. Wolves are a problem because they have not been managed and because of this people want to abliterate them. By the way who spends the most amount of money trying to save animals and hapitat??? Thats right the American sportsman spends more that greenpeace, aspca, peta, and all other so called "animal rights" groups put together. Before all of you close minded people begin to spread your mis information remember that when you see animals in the wild thank a American sportsman.
hinhankola posted at 1:54 pm on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
NO MORE Little Red Riding Hood mentality! My dad lived with wolves in Germany as a kid and they had to ride horses through a forest, why can't the ranchers here do it?
sheilerk posted at 1:44 pm on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
I couldn't agree more with packmentality!! What a well thought out, well stated response! So my comment is - what he/she said!
packmentality posted at 12:27 pm on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
The change in landscape for the positive occurred when Wolves were re-introduced. Wildlife grew as well. This argument WAS political, and had more to do with outfitters crying about actually hunting Elk rather than going to the same ol' locations and shooting fish in a barrel. While ignorant ranchers are also the problem, responsible ranchers were already pioneering new methods.
Same old song and dance will not be tolerated when it comes to the Ecosystem.
People need to understand the importance of predator presence, and it's strong effect on OUR land, which in turn, create a stronger herd environment.
I would also state the our Gov'T. needs to step up to the plate as well!
They need to have a better plan in place for responsible Ranchers for reimbursement as well as security.
If we want to save the land and manage wildlife better, we need to be a team.
To those who don't want to work within the law, there'll be a place for you too!
Thanks to all who helped to reinstate the wolves, and to those who are willing to be open minded, and not listen to the mis-information spread by those who are ignorant.
Stand by Ranchers and show them that we support them too, and wish to learn from them, as we wish them to learn from us.
I am pro hunting for food, not trophy.
Predators on four legs as well as two, can coexist.
LauraM posted at 11:50 am on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
Wolves are precious to the ecosystem. Smart ranchers know this. Ignorant ranchers need to get educated.
What's kind of concerning about this poll is that at this moment it only totals 81%. This shows that the math of the poll is flawed. What's going on with this?
jonsgrandma posted at 11:37 am on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.
Endangered is endangered... all need to be protected no matter what!