A federal judge has restored endangered species protection for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, putting a halt to legal wolf killing in Wyoming and derailing plans by it and two other states to hold public wolf hunts in the fall.
What the ruling says
Here are some key points in U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's Friday ruling that reinstates federal Endangered Species Act protection for wolves in the Northern Rockies:
Injunction
* The decision is not a final ruling on wolf relisting. It simply reinstates wolf protection pending full consideration of the conservation groups' lawsuit that argues wolf delisting violated the Endangered Species Act.
* In order to grant the preliminary injunction, the judge had to find that the plaintiffs had shown that delisting has and will continue to result in "irreparable injury" to the wolf population. The judge said such harm had been proven because the wolf control laws in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana were "more than likely to eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur" among wolf populations in the greater Yellowstone area, central Idaho and northwestern Montana.
* Granting the preliminary injunction request also required the judge to conclude that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on at least some of the lawsuit's claims. "In my view, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the majority of the claims relied upon in their request for a preliminary injunction," he wrote.
Genetic isolation
* Molloy's primary conclusion is that while the original wolf reintroduction plan called for the animals to be delisted after the population reached 300 in the three states, it also called for "genetic exchange" among the greater Yellowstone, central Idaho and northwestern Montana subpopulations. The judge said there's "strong evidence" that such exchange has not occurred.
* He also ruled that, "(D)elisting will undeniably reduce the chances for future genetic exchange."
Wyoming's plan
The judge found that Wyoming's wolf management plan is inadequate because:
* It doesn't clearly commit the state to maintain at least 15 wolf packs in the state.
"What these state laws show is that Wyoming is not committed to maintaining 15 breeding pairs of wolves within the state; rather, Wyoming intends to rely on (Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks') ability to maintain eight breeding pairs of wolves to satisfy Wyoming's obligation to preserve 15 breeding pairs as its share of the required wolf population."
* It offers no protection to wolves in 90 percent of the state.
The judge notes that the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2003 rejected Wyoming's wolf plan because it classified wolves in most of the state as predatory animals with no protection.
"Now, in approving Wyoming's 2007 plan, the (Fish and Wildlife Service) has compromised its earlier thinking and accepted less than statewide trophy game designation for the wolf," he wrote. "... The (agency) has failed to provide any rationale for accepting something less now."
* The "trophy game" zone in the northwest part of the state isn't big enough to guarantee wolf population viability, and its borders can be altered by the state Game and Fish Commission.
Wyoming wolf control
* Because Wyoming law allows the killing of wolves simply "doing damage to private property" -- not attacking or harassing people, pets and livestock -- the judge found that "it is unclear whether a viable wolf population can be sustained under the law."
-- Chad Baldwin, Star-Tribune editor
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., granted a preliminary injunction late Friday restoring the protection for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Molloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent. That would force the government back to the beginning in its effort to pass management of the animals to the states.
An estimated 2,000 wolves now roam the Northern Rockies, according to the latest estimate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They were removed from the endangered species list in March, following a decade-long restoration effort.
Environmentalists sued to overturn the decision, arguing wolf numbers would plummet if hunting were allowed. They sought the injunction in the hopes of stopping the hunts and allowing the wolf population to continue expanding.
"There were fall hunts scheduled that would call for perhaps as many as 500 wolves to be killed. We're delighted those wolves will be saved," said attorney Doug Honnold with Earthjustice, who had argued the case before Molloy on behalf of 12 environmental groups.
In his ruling, Molloy said the federal government had not met its standard for wolf recovery, including interbreeding of wolves among the three states to ensure healthy genetics.
"Genetic exchange has not taken place," Molloy wrote in the 40-page decision.
Molloy said hunting and state laws allowing the killing of wolves for livestock attacks would likely "eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur."
He particularly took aim at Wyoming's wolf management plan, which allows unregulated killing of wolves in most of the state and allows killing of wolves that are "doing damage to private property."
The federal biologist who led the wolf restoration program, Ed Bangs, defended the decision to delist wolves as "a very biologically sound package."
"The hunting of wolves clearly wouldn't endanger threatened wolf populations," Bangs said Friday. "We felt the science was rock solid and that the delisting was warranted."
Bangs said government attorneys were reviewing Molloy's court order and would decide next week whether to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wyoming officials also expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"I’m not surprised, given the judge’s previous comments," Gov. Dave Freudenthal said in a statement issued through his press secretary. "I’m disappointed, but I’m confident the attorney general will continue to litigate on the state’s behalf."
"We feel like Wyoming’s plan is adequate for maintaining a recovered population of wolves in the state," said Eric Keszler, spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. "We haven’t had time to review the entire decision yet, but we hope to do that over the weekend and have some more information available Monday."
More than 100 wolves have been killed since the states took over management of the animals in March, according to environmental groups that drew their tally from state wolf management reports.
However, even prior to the states gaining control, government wildlife agents had killed the predators at a steady pace. More than 700 had been killed in response to livestock conflicts through the end of 2007.
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said the number of wolves killed under state management was minimal.
"If a species that's recovered to the extent that the wolves have cannot be delisted, it confirms to me that the Endangered Species Act is truly broken," Magagna said.
The National Wildlife Federation had stayed out of the environmentalists' lawsuit, saying it could distract from efforts to protect other, more imperiled species. But for the plaintiffs in the case, Friday's ruling marked a major victory.
"We’re of course relieved the lawsuit is being heard, and that wolves will be guarded in the meantime," said Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for the wolf advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife. "It was a life or death decision for hundreds of wolves here in the region, and now it means life, and we’re very pleased with the decision."
Print this story
E-mail this story
Rate this story
Reader Comments
Comments to this story.
Rabid Dog wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:54 AM:
kill kill kill wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:58 AM:
Yeah, now the "rancher-hunter" types won't get their fun Wolf Kill rings...that whole idea of killing what was on the endangered species list, and rightfully so if you know ANYTHING about science and biology, was just stupid. And typical. So so typical. Typically Stupid. "
Loft wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:14 PM:
Yup... makes about as much sense - or less - then hunting down a passel of pound puppies in your backyard with the wife and kids. Guess what Rambo Ranchers? Prey and predator were peacefully roaming all over this area long before you decided it was good cattle country! Put some real boots on, and sweat through that starch before you start killing. "
rabies vaccinated wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:20 PM:
Go back where you moved from and leave the natives to handle problems like 2 legged and 4 legged transplants bring. "
Wyo Native wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:11 PM:
What is disturbing, is that some judge with a law degree thinks that he knows more than dozens of wolf experts do. The groups that pushed this lawsuit have no idea what impact wolves have and will continue to have on the residents of the states that have wolves as well as the financial burden these animals have on the wildlife agencies which apparently have no business managing them (for one, most of the members of these groups don't live here so frankly, they could care less). State wildlife agencies continue to successfully manage bears and mountain lions, but apparently some judge with no background in the matter seems to know best... "
Dewd wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:35 PM:
There is a silver lining to this ruling... It will sure take the spotlight off that stockgrower's civil war in Sublette County near Daniel... that Brucellosis thing, you know... " "
Wy Native wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:39 PM:
Zulu wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:02 PM:
SHR wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:23 PM:
David Ft Worth TX wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:42 PM:
Todd E. wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:48 PM:
I'll quote an older gentleman of whom I have had the pleasure of knowing. "It's not like our forefathers in this area had nothing better to do than kill wolves. They were busy enough just trying to keep food on the table. The wolves were killed for a reason." ...and for the last 14 years we've re-introduced a large predator into an eco-system that was not pepared for it. Thanks a wole bunch you liberal idiots. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:51 PM:
We will see how quick one federal judge can turn good people trying to make a living into criminals.
Loft, this has only brought the big boys to the table. The"dudes" won't be hunting the sharpshooters will! "
Dingus McGee wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:31 PM:
SHR wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:35 PM:
Lamp Lighter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:20 AM:
Zulu wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:22 AM:
But, we Wyoming folks are a forgiving and generous group, and we hearby offer that all of you who wish to see this a successful program, you are welcome to come on up and we will give each of you with all the wolves and Griz you want to plant in your state forests, parks and public/private land. "
Rabid Dog wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:50 PM:
"Cry havoc and let the civil war begin" "
idahoan wrote on Jul 20, 2008 2:10 PM:
Oh and can anyone give me a documented case of a wolf attack on humans in the rocky mountains since they were brought back...anyone? Didn't think so
How do you possibly expect to get anywhere in a civilized court of law with such a brash attitude about the issue? This is exactly why the injunction was filed. Im proud of Judge Malloy for not giving into the countless threats im sure he has received. and im glad this injunction was filed.
Hopefully now a proper management system can be developed that is based on science and not on raw hatred.
So go ahead bring on the death threats insult me whatever; it only makes you appear less educated, more controlled by emotional hatred and less able to properly manage your wildlife resources in your own state. "
She Dances with Wolves wrote on Jul 20, 2008 5:16 PM:
Ranchers, Hunters, IN YOUR FACES!!!!! "
Marion wrote on Jul 20, 2008 5:34 PM:
On top of that he objected to the state of Wyoming supporting private property rights too much.
He did not want numbers considered (there are 2-3000 wolves instead of the 300 originally planned) because there is no proof that there was enough breeding back and forth between the 3 states. "
Lee wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:01 PM:
coon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:35 PM:
for over 1/2 the YNP buffalo herd to be slaughtered, then the wolves and next they want the Elk eliminated. They tried years ago to eliminate the Bald Eagle.
Their cows are on free range that tax payers pay for and they want NO competition for feed. "
Lee wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:51 AM:
Lots of respondents are making negative remarks about the judge because his decision was not of their liking. Two USFWS criteria for delisting are numbers of wolves and exchange of genetic material between subpopulations. The first of these has been met but not the last. The USFWS found the Wyoming plan for management deficient in 2003 and no evidence was introduced to show why they had accepted the plan now.
Wy Native wrote
1. " What we need more of is less enviros and more people preferebly natives of Montana Idaho and Wyoming making the decisions on our Wildlife." Do you mean current citizens or the real natives? As Ambrose Bierce wrote
"ABORIGINIES, n.
Persons of little worth found cumbering the soil of a newly discovered country. They soon cease to cumber; they fertilize."
There may be more elk and deer than 100 years ago but how about grizzlies, pronghorn, badgers, prairie dogs, to name a few? Wildlife managers are predominately game managers and hunters let them know which wildlife they want managed. Why can't they manage to get some bison out there on public lands? Both elk and bison are infected with brucellosis transmitted to them by non-native cattle. Montana is considering reducing the northern Yellowstone elk herd to protect cattle in Paradise Valley - sounds like the wolves haven't been doing there job.
2. "members of these groups don't live here so frankly, they could care less" That means they do care!
Allen wrote "It would be fun to watch a wolf rip the guts out of some tree huggers 10 year old daughter." Now there is a nice thought!
These wolves are the same species that was exterminated in the early 20th century; they are not twice as big. They have not killed all the elk and they never will. How did the elk manage to survive prior to our arrival?
Why is it that citizens of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and U. Michigan with more wolves on less land than Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming speak without the venom of so many westerners? "
Over it... wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:36 PM:
I don't know what MIN, WIS, U MI, people your talking too! Certainly not the sportsman.
The wolves that roamed these states prior to OUR arrival were not afforded the readily available ELK on feedgrounds. Think about it!
Donating to enviro causes seems to be the" HIP "thing to do in many areas of the US. I bet if you asked those donating $ to these groups at least 50% of them would not be able to tell you where there money is going, much less present you with the groups "mission statement". Pathetic!
Molloy made his decision prior to the hearing. The greenie's knew he was on their side and filled in his court.
Wyo, MT, and ID residents will now be forced to take things into their own hands with this ruling. Those who were willing to give the legal process a chance and compromise with the pro wolf community with well thought out state plans, now have nothing to lose. If you think these people are going to stand by and watch the free roaming wolf destroy our Big Game, you are a bigger fools than I thought. Our Wilderness, and National Forests are large areas and lack coverage.
This is TRULY a sad day for the wolf!
Good luck finding that "needle in the haystack".
SSS
She Dances with Wolves....I look forward to dancing with the dead! "
SHR wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:55 PM:
Ice wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:03 AM:
SSS - yeSSS wrote on Jul 22, 2008 3:50 AM:
She dances...everytime I pop one of these predators, I'll think of you. And, I'll be thinking of you as often as I can :) "
earthling wrote on Jul 22, 2008 5:47 AM:
Willly wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:17 AM:
Also, how about putting some wolves in the Smokey Mtns & calling the whole mid-continent area wolf habitat that has to be connected to the Rockies for genetic diversity?
In Wyoming, a lot of historical winter range has been transformed into ranchettes or subdivisions thereby forcing the elk (& deer, etc.) to concentrate onto dwindling amounts of winter habitat, including private ranches & feedgrounds. This makes the wildlife easy picking for wolves. Yes, the imported wolves do need to be controlled or our native wildlife will take a huge hit. "
crazy horse wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:43 AM:
iriq wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:18 AM:
EcoSprite wrote on Jul 22, 2008 11:12 AM:
Lee wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:36 PM:
The following is from the Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin regarding deer populations in that state. " Winter mortality is the main factor affecting deer numbers in northern Wisconsin. During winter 1995-96 as many as 170,000 deer died in northern Wisconsin due to harsh winter weather. In the 1996-97 winter another 70,000 may have died.
Wolves in the Great Lakes region normally consume 15-18 deer per wolf per year (Fuller 1995). At a rate of 18 deer per wolf pack per year an average Wisconsin wolf pack of four wolves on a 70-square mile territory would consume about 72 deer or about 1 deer per square mile. Wisconsin's wolf population in 1999 consisting of about 200 wolves probably consumed 3,000 -3,600 deer. The total 1998 harvest within the central and northern forest zones where wolves occur was 112,936 by firearm hunters, 29,266 by bow hunters and another 10,000 by motor vehicles."
Wisconsin now has about 500 wolves, so at the higher depredation rate they now take about 9,000/year which represents less than 6 % of the annual take of deer. Doesn't sound like they have wiped out all the game! Getting rid of cars would save more deer! Also it would save a lot people from injury, death, and repair costs.
"The wolves that roamed these states prior to OUR arrival were not afforded the readily available ELK on feedgrounds. Think about it!" I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. There are no feed grounds for elk in Idaho nor northwestern Montana.
Willy - there was an introduction of wolves, Canis rufus, in the Great Smokies but it failed - not enough prey base. Elk in that area were wiped out by a two legged predator about 2 centuries ago.
Genetic exchange was one of the criteria selected by the USFWS. It has not been met.
Yes, get the wolf back into other states; I think there are better states for the wolfs sake than the ones you mentioned, however - like the Adarondacks in NY, Mt Baxter In Maine, Rockies in Colorado, Siskiyous in CA & OR. There is finally a breeding pair in northern Washington that probably came in from Canada and another in eastern Oregon which is probably an Idaho disperser. Yes! "
Over it... wrote on Jul 22, 2008 3:14 PM:
You cannot compare wolf behavior in Wisconsin to the Tri state intro areas. The sheer numbers of deer will NEVER allow the wolf population to eliminate those numbers. We simply aren't talking about that many elk here. Has Wisconsin witnessed their wolves killing multiple deer leaving them only after eating a small amount if any? Having seen this in Wy do you think it was an isolated case. I don't think so!
Science told us prior to re intro that ONLY the Alpha male and female would bread with in the pack. NOT the case in the GYE.
Now your science tells us that there might not be enough genetic exchange? With wolves moving out of Canada no less? Amazing........!
500 Wis wolves taking 9000 a year.
How long will it take until WY alone has 500?
Figure in all your other #s along with winter kill within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and OUR elk population may find itself in a poor state.
Of course the first thing to come out of your mouth would be "then you eliminate the hunting". Yep..the ultimate goal will then be achieved.
I'll say it again, "this ruling was a very sad day for the wolf"! You will look back and realize this before any changes will be made. Years....
I guess you people don't realize how easy it is to punch holes In four legged critters!
On a more positive note, at least you won't have to see it and you can wash your hands clean of the result.
SSS YES! Technology is a wonderful thing! Now we leave NO TRACE. "
Mr Green Jeans wrote on Jul 22, 2008 5:06 PM:
Jim wrote on Jul 22, 2008 6:59 PM:
hornschwagle wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:58 PM:
Lee wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:26 PM:
This statement you made "I don't know what MIN, WIS, U MI, people your talking too! Certainly not the sportsman. " implied to me that you had talked to "sportsmen" in those states and they felt the wolves were decreasing their hunting success.
Science did not say only the alpha male and female BREED. Studies show that they are the ones most likely to do so. More then one female whelping in a pack does occur. My science is telling you nothing about genetic exchange. USFW scientists, before reintroduction, listed this as one criteria to be met before delisting could occur. It is not new to the discussion.
"How long will it take until WY alone has 500 (wolves)?" Without counting the ones in YNP (which existied prior to the state of Wyoming) it will take a long time at the current rate. Wyoming's plan was to maintain a minimum of 7 or so breeding pairs outside of YNP in the "trophy area". Wow! That will make for lots of trophy wolves to hunt.
I have read that both Montana and Wyoming are considering reducing elk numbers to lower the risk of brucellosis in cattle? Bring on the top predator!
Genetic exchange: your comment - "With wolves moving out of Canada no less? Amazing........! " They don't make it to Wyoming and that is the population of concern. There is genetic exchange between NW Mont and central Idaho.
And another of your statements "Of course the first thing to come out of your mouth would be "then you eliminate the hunting". Yep..the ultimate goal will then be achieved." I don't know how you know what will come out of my mouth! I am not opposed to hunting, I like eating elk and deer - particularly rare steaks. Bear isn't bad either. Their fat makes a great pie crust.
Once you see an animal and have a gun in hand I know it will be easy to "punch holes in four legged critters'' - elk, deer, bear, cougar, wolves, bobcats, prairie dogs, pronghorns, jack rabbits, coyotes, squirrels, - - -. Have a good season, along with others of your ilk, using your gun and shovel. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:51 PM:
Quit playing word games.
We both know that the wolves in WY are reproducing at a much higher rate than those you mentioned. And will continue to do so.
I am not so much concerned with the wolf hunts ..I could care less. Its the welfare of the other Big Game that concerns me when the wolf population gets too big. You're out of your mind if you think the wolf population outside YNP would take a LONG time to reach 500 wolves. Whats a long time in your mind?
Are you telling me that there has been "0" genetic exchange with wandering Canadian wolves in WY? How do you know this? Because the USFW has tested every wolf that roams WY? Do you REALLY believe that?
Do you REALLY think that the wolves of Idaho and now WA , and NW MT don't and will not exchange DNA as the populations grow? If not already?
Sorry...I just cannot stop shaking my head!
Understand this..I am not against wolves. Only the non management of their numbers in balance with the rest of our ecosystem considering the current conditions. Harvest is management.
There really is no need for the shovel.
I am looking forward to a great season and a strong harvest.
Thank You! "
sportsman wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:09 AM:
" Lee,
I don't know what MIN, WIS, U MI, people your talking too! Certainly not the sportsman.
Wrong. WE Minnesotans have learned to live with our wolves more and more as we get used to them. The unreasonable fear and loathing is lessening. This NE MN sportsman (and hunter) likes wolves. I often have them in my yard. True "sportsmen" are willing and hopeful for a good balance of predator and prey. Being a "hunter" does not mean one is a sportsman. Slob hunters and/or poachers have always given sportsmen a bad name and always will. Real sportsmen follow the laws. Slob hunters and poachers that talk SSS are the true sportsmen's bane and are targeted by enforcement, as it should be. Gray wolves are magnificent animals and make great game animals. Despite many comments here, it is possible to like wolves and still want to hunt them. Hunters like elk but also hunt them. In fact, it has been said many times that the best way to protect a species is to put a hunting season on it.
The judges ruling is based on flawed info about genetic exchange. Bangs says so himself. The judge should rely on biologists more. Wolves should be managed like any other game animal. Hunting wolves is only one of many management tools and will not hurt their population.
The radical anti-wolfers bragging and babbing about how much they hate wolves only fuels the fears of the radical pro-wolfers. True sportsmen need to voice moderation so that wise STATE management can occur. The states' wildlife managers are very capable. The residents of the states need to feel that they are involved in their own management of their own wildlife. Their empowerment will be enlightening. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:57 AM:
We have been voicing moderation for 10+ years and look what it has gotten us! Nowhere! Sportsman need to now be more vocal, they need to stand up tall and quit taking punches below the belt. There comes a time in every battle when one has to draw the line.
Prior to this last law suit many "sportsman" felt good about the accepted plan. Both sides had made concessions in an attempt to do whats best.
Now we are back to square one. With very little management and a wolf population going unchecked. Meanwhile....our Big Game herds are put in poor situation.
Granted..there are slob hunters/poachers. There are also good hard working ethical people who are now being forced to act to protect their livelihood. We are not criminals! The criminals are sitting on the other side of the fence.
As previously stated.....the game populations in MIN,WI,U MI, cannot be compared to the game populations in WY, MT, and ID. Apples and Oranges! This ecosystem is unlike any other in the world. I like how you choose to ignore the differences.
Many of the residents HAVE now been enlightened as to how things work. They are NOW truly involved!
This re-listing was a very sad day for the wolf. "
Tguide wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:46 AM:
Ecosprite: Don't worry, I'm here! The relisting is unwarranted and I believe it will be overturned in due time! Don't fret over earthling....he's still trying to understand that "Ram" and "Buck" are synonymous with the western sheep industry! And he probably hasn't gotten back down to earth from attending the sheep sit in Idaho! "
Triple S wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:12 PM:
I guess Wyoming citizens will have to protect our own elk & moose populations. Judge can go hug a tree. "
JOE wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:52 PM:
one reply: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
hu hu
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa "
crazy horse wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:32 PM:
Over it... wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:07 PM:
Nobody's gonna be crying here but you when your wolves are still hitting the ground. Better buy some tissue now...tough times ahead!
Sweet dreams........ "
dime covers three wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:34 PM:
hornschwagle wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:52 AM:
crazy horse wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:27 AM:
hunter green wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:50 AM:
Todd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:05 AM:
EcoSprite wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:46 AM:
WyoNativeToo wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:50 AM:
Harmony wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:17 PM:
We have an offer for the ranchers.
We will pay half of the cost for Grizzly suites (made from recycled materials of course) that your cattle can wear, and Grizzly scent that you can apply to the cattle too.
This will protect your investment and save the wolves.
Our current pre-production cost estimate for each suite is $4700. The scent is projected at $12 per ounce. We believe that we can raise our half through hemp clothing sales by 2017.
Until then we will be glad to offer cattle sitting services during which our Cattle Guards will wear ghoulish make-up to frighten off the packs of wolves on your ranches.
We only ask for room and board for the homeless people that we will hire to guard the cattle. You may write this expense off on your taxes.
This will be a true win-win for all parties involved. "
Tim wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:46 PM:
If you are selected for jury duty in this particular type of case, then stand by the citizen defendant and vote not guilty. Let the feds see how powerful and absolute a jury's verdict can be. People have a right to protect their livestock and other wildlife from these wolves. This is actually a federal "we will stuff this down your throats issue" more than anything else. This has nothing to do with the arguments for or against the re-listing of the wolves. It has always been about a federal government determined to flex its' muscles and show the ranchers and hunters that the feds call all the shots. Good luck prosecuting anyone. "
Walter wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:53 PM:
Science has told us what to do. The feds and the state agreed.
The state developed a sound management plan.
And now one dope, goaded on by the screaming freak show of uneducated angry hippies has derailed what cost the tax payers millions and the ranchers more yet.
Time to adopt the tactics of the hippies and have a march of sportsmen and ranchers on the capital. Maybe we should block them in with RV's and tractors?
In your face activism seems to be all that officials react to these days, let's give them a taste of it. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:03 PM:
This re-listing might just be better for those who want to manage the wolves in the long run.
"10-J"?
Wyonativetoo........Those are some broad statements you make. Its not all about horns, the mount, or killing for that matter. Sorry you don't get it.
Wolves..."Wildlife worth Watching Run Between the Crosshairs" "
crazy horse wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:20 PM:
Marion wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:17 PM:
The funny thing about the genetics argument is that the Isle Royal wolves are decended from I believe only 3 wolves. On the other hand when the wolf in eastern Montana that did so much killing was killed and testing done, it had too much diversity! That left those who had to donate their livestock and protect the animal for so long holding the bag. surprise surprise. I guess he wants paternity DNA testing of all of the wolves, the cost to be borne by the states of course.
Perhaps the good judge woudl be willing to use his back yard for raising some genetically different wolves. "
impartial observer wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:18 PM:
Tguide wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:50 PM:
EcoSprite wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:08 AM:
Little Ronnie wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:18 AM:
Hippy Chic the Aviatrix wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:29 AM:
jerry wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:22 AM:
Reading these comments; however, leave me with several questions to ask of those of you who live in the West:
l. Do you consider yourselves as part of
the United States and subject to the
laws thereof? If not, perhaps you
should consider attempting to cecede
from the US.
2.Do you believe you are above the
laws of this nation just because you
do not like a legal ruling. If you do
believe in taking the law into your own
hands, then, you believe in anarachy.
If you believe in anarachy, there are
several places in the world where
you should find happiness. There are
many laws I disagree with but....
3.Have you considered that the hated
Enviros do not live in an area as
prestine as you and fast forward a
few yrs and your environment may
not maintain its prestine state.
Perhaps the Enviros actually have
your best interest in mind.
One of your writers referred to the fact that the wolves are not native to your state. Of course not, they were all
slaughtered by various means.
Tim, may I suggest you look up the term
"directed verdict" - some crlimes do not even get decided by a home-town jury.
Have been following the CST for several years and have yet to read about any humans being attacted by the big bad wolf.
Remember, when you set a buffet table in the homeland of the two top predators in this nation - Grizzlies and wolves, expect some losses.
In closing, apologies if logic offends your outrage and hatred. "
crazy horse wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:39 AM:
And the 700+ shot by WS over the past few years - yup that's OK too.
That said, don't get too fired up because this is simply an injunction, and one that is likely to be overturned. The genetic exchange could be accomplished simply with a number of means.
Dippy Chic - you really need to lay off the inhalants pal, because you're clearly delusional. Say hello to Alice and the Mad Hatter for me while you're in Wonderland flying your imaginary plane... "
Hmmm... wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:09 AM:
Over it... wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:55 PM:
Your legit market place for ideas was destroyed by MR. Molly. Thank him....He has pushed many of those that once sat at the table away. Including me.
Eco...you don't hear about every wolf. Remember that. We have no idea how many many get shot. No management plan will EVER allow us to know! "
Lee wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:55 PM:
1. " Lee, Quit playing word games." I didn't know I was - to what are you referring?
2. "I am not so much concerned with the wolf hunts ..I could care less." Perhaps you meant "I couldn't care less". Think about it.
3. "We both know that the wolves in WY are reproducing at a much higher rate than those you mentioned." I don't recall mentioning any in particular. Actually, Idaho is the state with the most rapid increase in the west. The following is from USFWS wolf report: At the end of 2007 there were 171 wolves in YNP in 11 packs with an average of about 14 pack members. This was an increase of 26% over the previous year. Outside YNP there were 188 wolves in 25 packs with an average of about 7/pack. This is an increase in the population of only 7.4%. END USFWS. Since delisting at least 21 have been killed in Wyoming- this represents about 11% of the population outside YNP. That is higher than their reproductive rate! Out of my mind or not, I stand by my statement that at the current rate it will take a long time for Wyoming, outside YNP, to have 500 wolves.
4." Are you telling me that there has been "0" genetic exchange with wandering Canadian wolves in WY?" The VonHoldt Study found in a sample of 30 percent of the wolves in Yellowstone National Park that there was no genetic connection with wolves in the other core recovery areas.
Sportsman from Minnesota, thanks for the response. Well spoken. "
crazy horse wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:07 PM:
EcoSprite wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:16 PM:
EcoSprite wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:42 PM:
jerry wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:17 PM:
before you decide to secede, study carefully the War Between The States and focus on the end result. Also watch reruns of Operation Desert Storm.
I have only VISITED your great state. I am way too old to move into an area with severe winters. Your comment about an influx of people into your state is on point and generates problems that the dreaded enviros have seen created by sprawl.
In regard to hunters and fishermen as environmentalists, I agree with you up to a point. For some reason, hunters and sportsmen vote into office the very people who don't care one iota about the pristine environment of your state. The last two
Secy's of Interior have given away the western
states to big business. As a McCain supporter in 2000, I spoke several times w/his office. He SUPPORTS the ESA and the reintroduction of wolves into the Rockies.
I would reiterate my statement that you and your
fellow Western citizens live in some of the most
beautiful country in our nation but in a very short time, that beauty could suffer without the efforts of those enviros who are obviously despised by many Westerners.
Crazy Horse, there does need to be sanity in this matter and many others. I submit that taking the law into ones own hands is not a sane approach.
Enjoy the beauty that you have. Nature has many sides
and predators are just one of them. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:59 PM:
Do you really think that the" protected wolves" of YNP are going to stay in the YNP? I know not! We already know that they are leaving the park. With a 26% increase year to year, tell me... How many wolves would that put in the YNP provided they all stay in just 5 years? And how many outside YNP? Please give me one of your scientific study numbers.
This 26% in the YNP + at least 7.4% outside + FULL protection outside the park= too many wolves. This all based on USFWS numbers. WhichI don't believe are accurate. I think there are more.
What % of wolves outside the park were found to have genetic diversity?
How many new wolves with different genetic makeup would it have taken to created the sought after genetic makeup inside YNP. Not many!
I am not a wolf biologist so I can't tell you what % of the YNP wolves leave currently or what we can expect in the future. I do know that there will be too many wolves before we will ever see them de-listed again if they fail to be removed NOW. Our court system and judges like Molly will see to that.
I am not willing to risk our Big Game herds in order to have wolves running around for you to take pictures until then.
The people of Wyoming will do what they have to do in order to protect Wyoming"s Big Game herds.
Like it or not. It's just unfortunate that some of those honest, hardworking people will be forced to break Federal Laws in order to survive.
I am always amazed by the pro wolf peoples ability to put the blinders on when it comes to common sense. You just ignore potential flaws within your studies because you want to believe your science is 100% sound.
Do you honestly believe that there has been "0" genetic transfer or that there will not be into YNP from outside wolves. All it takes is one or two and walla....you have your diversity. Just because your study hasn't found it doesn't mean it is non existent. Kinda like "wolves only kill out of necessity" ...uh huh.
You and your studies will never convince me genetic exchange within YNP hasn't already happened. "
JOE wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:24 PM:
statements like,
I/We will _________ (fill in the blank with: shoot, kill, gut shoot, SSS, hunt down, etc,etc).
are the last resort declaration of the mentally incompetent and physically impotent. In short, you. "
Tguide wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:25 PM:
highmarkin wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:48 PM:
Over it... wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:59 PM:
On one hand you live by the #'s provided by studies believing that "somehow" they have accounted for every wolf within the GYES. Then you turn around and say "well....we have no idea how many wolves are shot". Gee I thought you had them all accounted for? Bottom line is this you don't know for sure how many there are. We DO know that they have exceeded the objective set forth in the plan prior to re-introduction. Keep in mind those were the numbers that everyone agreed upon. Your numbers no less. Now that those numbers have been exceeded thats no longer good enough? The eco terrorists pull another fast one.. pimp the judge, and delay the de-listing once again. When does it stop? NEVER! Meanwhile populations grow to alarming rates and wipe out our Big Game herds. Sorry I am not going to stand around and watch this whole thing go down.
Joe....show me where I have made a direct" I/we " in regards to shooting wolves. And I mean "direct". Your assumptions don't count.
People come out swinging when they get backed into a corner.
I will relish every victory...you can bet on that. You won't take the next one back. "
Rick wrote on Jul 26, 2008 8:08 AM:
Rick wrote on Jul 26, 2008 8:39 AM:
Although you may find it hard to believe, Elk and Deer herds are smart enough to evade and survive with wolves on this planet. How do you think they ever made it together for the thousands of years before you and all of your wisdom splashed onto this planet a whopping 30 years ago? "
sportsman wrote on Jul 26, 2008 9:26 AM:
" sportsman...
We have been voicing moderation for 10+ years . Now we are back to square one.
As previously stated.....the game populations in MIN,WI,U MI, cannot be compared to the game populations in WY, MT, and ID. Apples and Oranges! This ecosystem is unlike any other in the world. I like how you choose to ignore the differences.
We are not "back to square one." You are panicking.
I am not ignoring the differences. Don't make stuff up. I "like" how the radical anti-wolfers use historical information from ancient Russia to show how dangerous wolves are to humans, but also say that "comparisons can't be made" with MN wolves because the three western states are unique.
It would be a crying shame if comparisons could not be made. If the Montana, etc ecosystem is unique with no comparison, then all the scientific info from decades of management in Alaska, Canada, Mn, will have to be ignored. The west will simply have to start over. The wolf should go back on the ESA list and the pop should be allowed to naturally fill all available habitat, with constant monitoring by biologists. When all the pertinent info has been gathered through the decades of pop dynamics, behavioral, etc studies, then US citizens can make some good scientific decisions. This claim of "no comparison" (recently popular with anti-wolf crouwd) should really be dropped by the radical antiwolfers. It could nip them in the bud.
I would personally act like the fed and state managers have been acting. They use info from many places in making their decisions.
Did you know that apples and oranges are both round. They are both fruit. They are both good food. They both grow on trees. They both have skins........... See, apples can be compared to oranges. :) "
Inky wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:00 AM:
In reality, the USFWS and their DC lawyers recognized for years that the Wyoming trophy/predator status for wolves was so extremely problematic that it guaranteed a lawsuit that the feds would probably lose.
With Kempthorne at the helm of Interior, USFWS pulled a 180-degree switcheroo and kissed and made up with Wyoming -- thus the delisting.
And people are surprised that a federal judge would blast the Wyoming plan?
Very early on, Wyoming was told by DC it could shoot as many wolves as it wanted, as long as it was "managed," rather than the unrestricted kill frenzy that livestock interests insisted upon with their predator status for wolves in 90 percent of the state.
That offer was rejected by the predator haters, and here we are today.
Happy? "
Lee wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:32 AM:
1. "Please give me one of your scientific study numbers". Just one? They aren't mine just info readily available on line. Wolf numbers in YNP from 1995 through 2006 as of April 1st each year. 14, 18, 44, 59, 67, 63, 104, 107, 113, 134, 141, 85. I will let you calculate the % increase or decrease each year. The mortality rates by % of the population for the same years have been 14, 18, 26, 10, 11, 15, 13, 30, 19, 29.
2. "This all based on USFWS numbers. Which I don't believe are accurate. I think there are more." Of course you do!!! You will believe what ever you want in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
3. "Do you honestly believe that there has been "0" genetic transfer or that there will not be into YNP from outside wolves." It has nothing to do with what I believe - it's the judge.
4. "some of those honest, hardworking people will be forced to break Federal Laws" you among them? - grab your shovel!
5. "You just ignore potential flaws within your studies because you want to believe your science is 100% sound." You always have lots of words but no substance. Of what flaws are you speaking? Once again, it is not my science and scientific studies have degrees of confidence not absolutes. "
Jim-Casper Wyoming wrote on Jul 26, 2008 4:42 PM:
If the defenders of wildlife cared as much about people as they do about animals the world would be a better place. If you live out of state come to our great state of Wyoming with a kennel I am sure we can find a way to give you your own wolf to take home and oogle over. Oh, maybe this is breaking the rules just like the decision to relist wolves.This ruling is ridiculous and shows that money is more important than decisions based on sound science. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 26, 2008 4:52 PM:
1. If you would like to believe those #s thats great. I find it very hard to believe them based on the fact that accounting for every wolf in the GYE is impossible. Common sense would have one leaning towards there being more rather than less. After all they are so elusive.
Wolf mortality rates like the ones we saw after the de-listing likely won't be seen again. Even if they had been left off the list. So I fully expect mortality to be lower and overall populations to increase in the same fashion we had seen.(if not higher)
2. You Lee, also choose to believe whatever you want discarding common sense in the process. If you believe the USFWS has every wolf accounted for and those numbers are 100% accurate or even on the low side....you are a fool and not as bright as some might think after reading your posts. We all know there are "professionals"/"experts" with lofty degrees who simply lack perspicacity.
3. Your response here is a the typical pro wolf retort and serves to undermine your position. Thank you.
4. I am one of the honest and hard working people who feel this ruling was unwarranted and detrimental to our Big Game herds. I don't need a shovel.
5. I simply do not have a great degree of confidence in your science due the great number of variables that could impact your studies to the dismay of the pro wolf groups.
Your studies are NOT absolute.
Spotrsman....I am talking about the BIG GAME populations and the reference you made to their numbers. Please go back and read. Your population scenario wolves vs deer in the states mentioned are very different than WY, MT, and ID.
Sure..Apples and Oranges both grow on tree's, and they are both round. But you have selectively ignored the fact that they taste VERY DIFFERENT. Much like many of the pro wolf supporters do when it comes to the wolf and population numbers. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:08 PM:
Lee wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:22 PM:
Over it's response was: 5." I simply do not have a great degree of confidence in your science due the great number of variables that could impact your studies to the dismay of the pro wolf groups. Your studies are NOT absolute."
If you would reread my reply it says these studies are not absolutes! And for the 3rd time it is not my science! You should check out the meaning of "degree of confidence" in scientific studies. It has nothing to do with an individuals personal opinion regarding the subject or their acceptance of the conclusions.
The last data for wolf populations and mortality that I included were for Yellowstone National Park - not the greater Yellowstone ecosystem - and were not from USFWS but YNP annual wolf reports. Early on all these wolves were radio-collared and had intensive monitoring so I reason that the numbers stated for YNP are quite accurate. Wolves probably couldn't urinate without someone recording when, where, and how much. "
WyoTom wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:03 AM:
Jerry- please know that most of us in this state are good law-abiding citizens who are sick and tired of right-wing radicals thinking they speak for all of us. However, we are also tired of leftist who don't even live here trying to control our states management plans. Please come back and visit often, We do enjoy how your money stimulates our economy.
It would be nice if the judge would consider some of the expert biologists wisdom in this whole program. We can have a strong and healthy wolf population that is managed wisely so as not to have a negative influence on areas surrounding Yellowstone.
I hope some of you will take the time to consider some logical thought on the issue. I know I didn't attack anyone or name-call so I suppose I will be dismissed as some East Coast transplant, which I am. I am an East Coaster by birth but a Wyomingite by choice and we can have a healthy wolf population and a viable wolf management plan at the same time. It doesn't always have to be either/ or. Some of you need to think about the subject before you just spew your groups party line. "
sportsman wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:25 AM:
.
"5. I simply do not have a great degree of confidence in your science due the great number of variables that could impact your studies to the dismay of the pro wolf groups.
Your studies are NOT absolute.
Spotrsman....I am talking about the BIG GAME populations and the reference you made to their numbers. Please go back and read. Your population scenario wolves vs deer in the states mentioned are very different than WY, MT, and ID."
No, studies are not absolute, but they are mre absolute than your coveted "common sense." I chose to believe the biologists over your self-proclaimed common sense. The radical anti-wolfers hate science when it disagrees with their position. They have said many times that the wolf biologists are "paid government liars." But when guys like Bangs say something you agree with, suddenly science is "the bomb."
As far as "my references" to big game numbers: Minnesotans "are willing and hopeful for a good balance of predator and prey" is the only statement I can find that I made which is remotely about "numbers." You are grasping at straws. You should probably quote me when claiming I wrote something instead of just making stuff up.
Lets put the onus on you. Prove that My statement is wrong. And prove that a good predator prey balance is not possible in your unique western habitat. Prove that elk and wolves can not reach a natural balance in the west. None of your "common sense" is allowed.
But hey, I don't really care too much. I'm just trying to get to wise state management for the western states. I suppose I should not butt in. I guess you don't want allies. If comparisons can't be made, I'll stop trying to convince folks that western wolves can be legitimately hunted and the states are capable. I'll leave it up to you folks to reinvent wolf management in your unique ecosystem. Good luck with that. It would be decades before the states would get management. The radical pro-wolfers will have a field day with that one. Someitmes the radical anti-wildlife/ anti-hunting/anti-wolfers (that's right, wolves are wildlife and legitimate game animals; anti-wolfers are just trying to stop hunting; wolf hunting) come up with the most stupid arguments. yours is one of them.
I'll butt out of your fight now. Have fun. "
fornativewildlife wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:28 PM:
How many non-native Canadian wolves do we need anyway? "
Lee wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:40 PM:
Lee wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:13 AM:
Lee wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:56 AM:
Where did you find those figures? Lets check the math. The area of Wyoming is 97,818 square miles, if the wolf density is one per 13 square miles there must be 7525 wolves in the state. Wow! On the other hand if you divide the area by the number of wolves, perhaps 400, there is one wolf per 245 square miles. The density of wolves in YNP is about 1 in 20 square miles "
Over it... wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:12 PM:
Legal harvest numbers are greatly affected by the number of tags issued by Game and Fish, and weather. Why do you think the deer and pronghorn numbers are so high and out of proportion to the elk? Could it be that the primary prey base for the wolves is elk? Not Deer and Pronghorn? (great attempt to bolster you numbers there Lee)
Why don't you show us the individual herd numbers...ya know the numbers from the herds surrounding YNP ? And I am not talking about the GTNP herds or the YNP portion of the herds. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:13 PM:
Balance is not my issue. My issue is at who's/what expense.
It would be nice to go back to the "old days", but we have changed the landscape to a point that your utopia is out of grasp . Big Game herds have become dependent on feed grounds and no longer "roam" about the winter range like they used too. If you think that somehow they will migrate to the "Red Desert" when the feed grounds are eliminated your crazy. Mans footprint has changed the "natural" habits" needed to create your desired affect. You simply cannot expect to "go back" to how things used to be. Do you need a study to understand that? If so I am wasting my time having this discussion.
The fact that ID, and MT don't have feed grounds makes them different. Wyoming's management plan will aways differ. I don't envision a balanced Wyoming ecosystem without feed grounds and a "fully" protected wolf population.
My apologies sportsman....it was Lee that compared the numbers of deer in said states to the Big Game here in Wy. I stand by my position that you cannot compare them.
1. If you would like to believe those #s thats great. I find it very hard to believe them based on the fact that accounting for every wolf in the YNP and the GYE is impossible. Common sense would have one leaning towards there being more rather than less. After all they are so elusive. Its all about the numbers....and ones position is based on what you believe to be true.
Wolf mortality rates like the ones we saw after the de-listing likely won't be seen again. Even if they had been left off the list. So I fully expect mortality to be lower and overall populations to increase in the same fashion we had seen.(if not higher)
Now answer my questions...(Lee,Sportsman)
1. Do you believe without a doubt that there has been "0" genetic exchange?
2. Do you believe that YNP has every wolf accounted for within YNP? How can they account for a wolf that is not collared? Not every wolf is collared. Right?
3. Do you believe it is possible to introduce a few wolves to said population in order to provide new genetics, in an attempt to achieve the desired "genetic diversity"?
I am NOT anti Wolf!
I am PRO management through HARVEST. "
WyoTom wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:25 PM:
We can have them in our state but we can also manage the numbers. It is great to have them back into the ecosystem but they should be hunted so they keep a proper balance in the ecosystem.
Your believe about the observation of wolves in YNP may be a little off. A great read for you would be Decade of the Wolf. They know a lot about most of them but I don't think they would argue they could account for every one.
Long live the wolf and long Live the American hunter! Yes they can coexist together. "
WyoTom wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:34 PM:
Management through harvest. A good sportsman will want the numbers managed so they can continue to hunt them in the future.
I am sure if the numbers got to low a good sportsman (not some of the kill all the wolves and kill them now folks on this blog) would be the first to stand up and say let's reduce the hunts until the population increases. That is what the leftists don't understand. Good hunters are salt of the earth type of people who along with harvesting the wildlife enjoy their beauty and presence in nature.
Long live the wolf! Long live the American Hunter. "
Over it... wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:41 PM:
According to your post 7/28 10:56 am you have picked up an additional 41 wolves in Wyoming since your post on 7/25. Wow! thats a whopping 11% in just three days. Now you support the fact that there might be more than what the USFWS numbers have stated? To the tune of 41?
WOW! I would say a slight deviation from your solid presentation of numbers prior. You can't claim both!
For fun...
Lets take say 2/3 of your 41 extra wolves and say that they reside in the YNP. (24) Fair? Thats an approx 40% increase to that population that "might" be there based on the numbers YOU provided from the USFWS. What are the chances that" maybe" that additional 40% exchanged new genetic material creating genetic diversity? Pretty darn good I would say. Even if my calculations are slightly off..your additional 41 wolves is a big difference when you do the math.
Your numbers on square miles are also flawed in that you should be figuring them on "habitable" area. Much of Wyoming is less than ideal for solid wolf populations, unlike the greater areas of AK. and BC. Regardless 1-20 is still too many as far as I am concerned. "
Lee wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:01 PM:
1. Do you believe without a doubt that there has been "0" genetic exchange?
2. Do you believe that YNP has every wolf accounted for within YNP? How can they account for a wolf that is not collared? Not every wolf is collared. Right?
3. Do you believe it is possible to introduce a few wolves to said population in order to provide new genetics, in an attempt to achieve the desired "genetic diversity"?
I am NOT anti Wolf!
I am PRO management through HARVEST. "
Answers as best as possible to the above.
1. I have to change the question to "Do you know that there has been "0" genetic exchange?" NO!
To know this, without a "doubt", all the wolves in the area would have to be reliably tested; this is not possible wolves being what they are and our ability to catch every one. The expense alone is prohibitive. That is why scientists sample populations. A 30% sample is not trivial.
2. Again I have to change believe to know and you asked several questions. I certainly know they keep close tabs on park pack numbers, members, territories, and breeding pairs. The exact numbers will never be known at any second in time - deaths, births, and dispersions are ongoing. Uncollared wolves within YNP usually are members of a known pack; so it is true not every wolf is collared - to what point if they are pack members? Those collars are expensive.
3. Change believe to know and yes I know it is possible to introduce wolves into Wyoming to provide genetics diversity. I suggest they bring in ones from the Lolo population in Idaho; that state wants do reduce wolf numbers there to bolster elk numbers that are decreasing mostly due to maturation of forests following catastrophic fires of 100 years ago.
I suggest all read "Trophic Cascade"; it isn't just about game numbers but ecosystems - particullarly riparian ones.ycriz
You are not anti wolf? Great.
I have no problem with reasonable harvest. Just that Wyoming's plan is a bit severe. "
Lee wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:07 AM:
1. "Why don't you show us the individual herd numbers...ya know the numbers from the herds surrounding YNP ? " Tell me where to find these stats. I looked.
2. "Your numbers on square miles are also flawed in that you should be figuring them on "habitable" area. Much of Wyoming is less than ideal for solid wolf populations"
What do you mean by solid wolf populations? Additionally, I only responded to fornativewildlife saying that there was 1 wolf for each 13 square miles in Wyoming. There was no mention of habitable area. A simple statement that can be refuted by looking at numbers. I used the number 400 (possible) wolves in Wyoming because the 359 was the USFWS estimate for the end of 2007. There have been births, deaths and movements within the GYE this year. Thus I used the 400 number which is my estimate. If you think there are more wolves than that you can do your own math.
3. "Regardless 1-20 is still too many as far as I am concerned."
That is the density in YNP; why do you object to that? Wyoming's density is about 245 square miles per wolf. One per state is probably too many for you!
4. " Lee...
According to your post 7/28 10:56 am you have picked up an additional 41 wolves in Wyoming since your post on 7/25. Wow! thats a whopping 11% in just three days. Now you support the fact that there might be more than what the USFWS numbers have stated? To the tune of 41?
WOW! I would say a slight deviation from your solid presentation of numbers prior. You can't claim both!"
I don't. See # 2.
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates Wyoming's wolf population at 359 wolves at the end of 2007." My post of 7/28 said it was for the end of 2007 so of course there has been a change in the population during 2008. "
sportsman wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:44 AM:
" sportsman....
that your utopia is out of grasp
.
If you think that somehow they will migrate to the "Red Desert" when the feed grounds are eliminated your crazy.
your desired affect.
You simply cannot expect to "go back" to how things used to be. I am wasting my time having this discussion.
you cannot compare them.
1.. Common sense would have one leaning towards there being more rather than less.
Now answer my questions...(Lee,Sportsman)
1. Do you believe without a doubt that there has been "0" genetic exchange?
2. Do you believe that YNP has every wolf accounted for within YNP? How can they account for a wolf that is not collared? Not every wolf is collared. Right?
3. Do you believe it is possible to introduce a few wolves to said population in order to provide new genetics, in an attempt to achieve the desired "genetic diversity"?"
Blah, blah, blah. You cannot teach me anything about wildlife management. I've been in the business for 30 years.
Stop making stuff up.
"My utipia"?
Why don't you tell me what my utopia is. I have not stated any such thing as utopia or a desired future.
Red desert? You should speak for yourself and stop making things up about what others think or write. Show me where I spoke of a red desert or any such similar thing.
My desired effect?
Stop making stuff up. Show me what my desired effect is. I mentioned no such thing.
Go back to the way things were?
Don't make stuff up. Show me where I addresssed the past and where I said anything about going back.
Of course I can compare them. Because they are not exactly the same does not nullify the many similarities. Your standard for comparison is a flight if your own fansy/fantasy. You apparently have no education or experience in wildlife management. Or you are simply spinning the argument.
1. genetic exchange? The answer is no. I stated that in my first post. "Go back and read what I wrote instead of making stuff up.
2. No, not every wolf in YNP is collared or individually counted. Who wrote that? Certainly not me. Go back and read.
3. Sure. I never wrote otherwise. Now how do my three answers make you feel? Vindicated? I don't know why. I have never indicated otherwise.
Your common sense is poor, and you have shown nothing that backs up your uneducated estimate that there are more wolves than reported by biologists.
Now, to the point I was trying to get accross to you. You didn't seem to get it so I'll spell it out as clearly as I can; one more time. A poster wrote that MN "sportsmen" don't like the wolves...or whatever. That brought me into the conversation, as he was wrong. You falsly accused me of writing stuff I didn't write and you continue to do so; apparently attacking anyone with a slightly different view makes you feel better, even though you went off topic. I've seen your type of behavior many times in wolf disscussions. Your type of wolf-hatred only fuels the anti-hunting fervor as it shows hunters as slobs and lawbreakers. You do more harm to wise state management of wolves than any other thing hunters can do. If the non-hunting public views us as lawbreakers, poachers, slob hunters, and the type that makes stuff up about others, then hunters suffer the consequences. You need to leave your silly speculations behind because you are doing the hunting public harm. I support state management of wolves and wrote in support of it in this discussion. You made up a bunch of stuff to argue about, apparently to try and get your "common sense" accross. What you ended up doing is losing my support. Now you can fight the anti-hunters all by yourself. "
sportsman wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:54 AM:
500 Wis wolves taking 9000 a year.
How long will it take until WY alone has 500?
easy it is to punch holes In four legged critters!
SSS YES! Technology is a wonderful thing! Now we leave NO TRACE. "
Stop comparing Wisconsin with the west, poacher. "
Lee wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:42 AM:
On July 21, I posted the following comment: "Why is it that citizens of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and U. Michigan with more wolves on less land than Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming speak without the venom of so many westerners? "
To which Over it, also on July 21 responded:"I don't know what MIN, WIS, U MI, people your talking too! Certainly not the sportsman."
On July 22, I (Lee) said Over it's remark " implied to me that (he) had talked to "sportsmen" in those states and they felt the wolves were decreasing their hunting success."
I also, on July 25 said "Sportsman from Minnesota, thanks for the response. Well spoken." I thank you again for calling Over it on all those things he makes up. "
Over it... wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:31 PM:
My response to your following question "Why is it that citizens of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and U. Michigan with more wolves on less land than Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming speak without the venom of so many westerners? " Was based on many conversations with hunters from the states you mentioned. First hand. I simply disagree with your assertion that they speak without venom. I stand by my statement.
My statemet "I don't know what MIN, WIS, U MI, people your talking too! Certainly not the sportsman." was indeed meant to imply that I have spoken to "sportsman from those states.
Thats because I have, many times.
Sportsman..... I'll leave the shooting of wolves to others as long as they remain on the list. I have far too much to lose by shooting a listed wolf. I am a hard working, law obbiding citizen, I will not allow myself to become a criminal in the eyes of the court by this ruling. You can resort to calling me a poacher if it makes you feel better. I have over 18 years in the field with many hunters on a professional level, and not a single violation. Thank you!
I appreciate your work as a biologist and I am sure there are many things that we would agree on.
A "voice of moderation" is not one of them. It has gotten use nowhere.
Sorry for the delayed response....I have been in the woods since the 1st watching wolves and elk. "
Lee wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:10 PM:
TwinCities.com MN Aug 4, 2008:
The state's population of gray or timber wolves is estimated at 2,922 wolves in a DNR survey conducted last winter, down from 3,020 in the most recent count in 2004 and up a bit from 2,450 in 1998. Wisconsin has about 550 wolves and Michigan's Upper Peninsula about 510. Minn DNR: 260,000 deer were harvested in 2007. The last 5 years have had the 5 highest harvests on record. The greatest hunter success is 43.7% in zone 1 in the NE part of the state (where the most wolves are). John Erb, wolf research specialist for the Minnesota DNR said he's not surprised wolves have stopped moving south, saying several factors are at play. "Part of it is that deer densities are lower in the farm areas. But there's also more people, more activities and higher road densities. The line where the wolf range is drawn now really matches up not just with the forested area, but the area where road densities really increase to the south." Wolf numbers and the area occupied have stabilized.
Lets say there are 3000 wolves in Minnesota with an area of 80,000 square miles (not including all the lake area) that gives a density of 1 wolf per 27 square miles (if you include the whole state) That is close to the density in YNP! And you are complaining?
Why are those MN sportsman you have been talking to complaing about when the last 5 years have had the greatest deer harvest ever? "
Denise wrote on Apr 6, 2009 4:27 AM:
I am from Brazil and also now am reading in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Airline tickets, discount airline ticket, really cheap airline tickets, cheap discount airline travel ticket."
:) Thanks in advance. Denise. "
Submit a Comment