Update. The Idaho Mountain Express now has this story. F&G investigates wolf killing near Clayton. Black wolf was member of Morgan Creek wolf pack. By Jason Kaufmann.
Most of the focus has been on Wyoming, and the hatred some of the locals have of anything wild and free; but then there’s Idaho too.
We just saw a case of doubtful case of justice in Ashton, but there’s more . . . at least two wolves have been illegally killed in East Central Idaho this week. One was left tailess. For everyone’s edification here is the other. There are probably more out there.
Photo © copyright Lynne Stone.
Stone wrote “I found a black wolf that was shot on the morning of April 3, 2008 from Highway 75 near Peach Creek in the Salmon River canyon (closest town is Clayton Idaho). Peach Creek is about 20 miles down river from Stanley. The black wolf was a male, collared and known as B160, from the Morgan Creek Pack. He was probably about six years old. His teeth were worn. He had been shot through the femur and the bullet(s?) came out his stomach. The wolf was still warm when I walked out to it, laying about 70 yards from the road. I took photos, then went and found IDFG law enforcement who happened to be nearby, picking up a dead elk.”
- - - - - -
I’m no more offended by the blood than I was by the series of photos circulated by Save Our Elk. It’s the poaching and Idaho’s toothless wolf plan that makes my blood boil. Ralph Maughan
April 17, 2008 at 12:48 am
idaho is not ready. 2 illegally killed wolves in a week - right after the gate opens on delisting but before the state hunt. this demonstrates the regard that folk in idaho have for the the idea, and as you say Ralph, the Idaho legislature has set that tone by rendering impossible any enforcement or protections for Idaho wolves - and they did so the day delisting took place.
killing idaho wolves like this is not technically legal - but it is not illegal, there is no way to enforce.
April 17, 2008 at 6:36 am
Thanks for posting this photo, Ralph. And thanks to Lynne for providing it. It’s about time!
April 17, 2008 at 6:43 am
Looking at the photo makes me cringe. Not only was it illegal, but it was evidence as to the grave ignorance of some people.
I have been shooting and hunting since I was old enough to hold a rifle up ( a long time.) Anyone, legal or not, who takes a shot like that is an out and out moron!!! The first rule of hunting, never shoot anything you don’t intend to kill, second NEVER TAKE A SHOT THAT ISN”T A MARK FOR A FIRST SHOT KILL!!! Whoever did this is a flagrant idiot and shouldn’t be aloud to own or posses a weapon!
Not only was the wolf illegally shot -no sign of anything to harass let alone a sign of harassment having occured-it was shot badly with disregard for life or suffering.
April 17, 2008 at 8:33 am
Yeah, that’s some piss-poor shooting there. But then again, it doesn’t suprise me.
April 17, 2008 at 8:36 am
The person that shot this wolf didn’t care whether or not it suffered, they shot it illegally.
April 17, 2008 at 8:42 am
People who shoot wolves illegally are hoping they will suffer..they always have, wolf killers don’t care about suffering.
April 17, 2008 at 8:49 am
Hey! That was my point! No fair
April 17, 2008 at 8:59 am
Sorry Buffaloed! LOL
But in all seriousness, I have never met a poacher, who actually cared about the animals they kill, they are normally in it for the thrill of the kill, and when it comes to Wolves, Coyotes, etc. They want to see the animal suffer, I have seen some real sick things over the years..
April 17, 2008 at 9:01 am
I’ll add that as I walked out to the black wolf, other wolves were howling in the foothills. I’ve heard this mournful howling before for a lost pack member. Sadly, I have to agree with Buffaloed and Save bears as to the mindset of those who want to kill wolves — there’s no respect for the animal. Try reading (if you can stand it) some of the comments on bowsite on the web, an anti-wolf, bow hunter blog.
April 17, 2008 at 9:32 am
No thanks, Lynn. I got a bellyfull already on from another “Good Ole Boy” hunting blog — which I won’t mention by name.
The irony that seems to escape those guys is that some of the comments I read there are better anti-hunting propoganda than anything PETA could ever dream up.
April 17, 2008 at 9:44 am
Looking at that photo and judging from the forensic description, I don’t think that shot was deliberatly placed where it hit. More likey, it was the result of wild, careless shooting, perhaps even from a burst of semi-automatic fire at a running animal. Either way, the lack of respect for the animal and lack of regard for its suffering are clear.
I let a buck I know would have made the Boone and Crockett book go a couple of years back. That’s because I was spaced out and walking across open ground after a sunrise hunt when I saw him, and by the time I got my dumb, should-have-been-paying-better-attention butt into position and got the scope on him, he’d already pegged me and was starting to run. Shooting at a moving animal is just too risky.
April 17, 2008 at 9:44 am
We can only hope that when the delisting lawsuit is finally presented/heard at the end of this month that so much illegal and “legal” killing has occured that the court sees these toothless state management plans for what they really are, wolf slaughter plans.
April 17, 2008 at 10:25 am
Thanks Lynn and Ralph..hopefully this picture gets into some major newspapers and or mags.
April 17, 2008 at 10:54 am
What a pathetic way to be left. No compassion, no concern for others who may come across it, no compromise.
This is outrageous.
~ Vicky
April 17, 2008 at 11:22 am
This was great work by Lynne Stone, I hope her picture makes it all the way to the main stream media so the average American can see the gruesome results of delisting and the States shameful Wolf management policy.
April 17, 2008 at 11:38 am
jjordan,
Poachers are no different than murders IMHO. This pic is no different than any other pic of a dead human ETC. Wolves will be poached whether or not they have federal protection or not.
April 17, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Ryan,
poached wolves under federal protection have some chance of being prosecuted. not so under state. that effects behavior.
April 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I was wondering when the ugly news in Idaho would surface. This photo is absolutely heartwrenching.
April 17, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Lynne Stone - Your photo is copyrighted. Can you post on here permission to download and distribute the picture…
Thank You,
April 17, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Ryan,
Wildlife is wonderful, wolves are especially cool and this was a despicable act, but drawing a direct comparison to the murder of a human being is going over the top, IMO
April 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Ryan is correct, Read the Chad McKittrick story, Federal protection does make a difference if they are caught.
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=1476
April 17, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hal,
Both killings were committed by criminals was the comparison I was going for, no matter who the enforcing agency is.
Brian Ertz,
The Feds won’t do any better than state officials. They couldn’t find out who killed a Sea Lion in my local area, even with 12 witness boats.
April 17, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Correction Brian Ertz was correct, Read the Chad McKittrick story, Federal protection does make a difference if they are caught.
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=1476
April 17, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Ryan,
Yes, poaching and homicide are both crimes. But then again a mild attention disorder and full-blown sociopath psychosis are both mental heath problems.
April 17, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I still have Wolf Meditation Cards available if anyone is
interested. Email me: fatdog101@msn.com.
I printed Lynn’s photo out, I will do a ceremony tonight,
burning the photo, reading the wolf mediation I wrote
and sending this beautiful creature back to the Earth where
he now resides forever.
April 17, 2008 at 7:05 pm
“Wildlife is wonderful, wolves are especially cool and this was a despicable act, but drawing a direct comparison to the murder of a human being is going over the top, IMO”
I’m not so sure Hal 9000. I know that we are always suppossed to value human life more than any other type of life, but I have done a lot of thinking on this issue and I am not so sure I agree.
For example, I think a few endangered California Condors are more important than the lives of every criminal gangbanger on the planet. The gangbangers could disappear off the face of the planet and it would be no loss for the planet or the rest of us.
It really depends on what human life you are talking about. I don’t believe simply belonging to the human race makes you something valuable. A person’s actions are what make them truly “human” and define their worth.
Do you believe that ANY human life is more important than any amount of animal or plant life? Would you bemoan the death of one gangbanger more than the extinction of an entire animal species? I wouldn’t.
I agree that maybe Ryan overstated the point but I think he might have meant that the mentality of a person who revels in killing an animal for no reason other than to watch it die are really not much better than a person who would take a human life.
April 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Hal,
I am looking at the photo, and you can see what appears to be an entry would on the back right buttock, and an exit wound on the lower right body, below the ribs and near the intestinal track…which looks to have been blown outward.
Sorry to be graphic people, given the point of entry and exit, I would say that the wolf was shot while it was running away from the shooter. When you consire that during a full run canines rear legs fold up and into the abdominal area, it would bare the assumption that the bullet would have entered through the contracted hind quarter and then travelled through the abdomen where it exited. I would also say that the type of visible injury would not necissarily be immediately fatal. I HAVE SEEN A GUT SHOT ELK RUN FOR MILES BEFORE DROPPING. So who ever took this shot took a shot at a wolf’s butt as ift was fleeing.
Legal or not, it was a *&^%$# up thing to do!!!!And the way it was done would suggest that this person has mass murdered in their future headline! They killed because they enjoyed the act of killing, not the sport of the hunt.
April 17, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Just thought some of you would like to read a bit of this report since it from the other side of the delisting issue. What is interesting to me about numbers and facts is that they can be made to say whatever you want (this includes both sides of the issue)…My feeling toward this is simply put: Ranchers and Hunters (well those without values) are fighting the wolf because of senseless greed followed by jealousy (i.e. they are not top dog anymore).
April 17, 2008 at 10:46 pm
http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=349054&forum=5#2397770
Sorry if you didn’t get the first link I sent.
April 18, 2008 at 8:41 am
Vicki… I think that’s a fair assesment fo the shot. Although, I would not go so far as to speculate that the person in question might someday be a murderer. I think it shows a contept for wolves and placing no value on them as a species. And that’s a pretty widespread sentiment in these parts. So, I could just as easily speculate that this person would be every bit as careful as I am when shooting at a deer… but throws caution to the wind when it comes to shooting at wolves because he thinks the “evil” wolf needs to be stopped at all costs to “save” the deer, elk and ranchers. Therefore, if a wolf is in sight, you shoot. The animals’ suffering is not a great concern… so long as you hit, that’s all that matters. A crippled wolf is just as good as a dead one in that regard. You’re helping to stop the “evil” wolf from “decimating” more game herds or making it so some poor rancher can’t send his daughter to college.
April 18, 2008 at 8:45 am
C. Walton… having spent considerable time in the court and crimimal justice system as an observor, I would say that as hard as it is to admit sometimes, thugs and criminals are people too.
It’s never so simple as being able to call another person “worthless,” and I say that having been face-to-face on several occassions with drug dealers, theives and even murderers.
Plus, I’ve also met former crankheads and gangsters who turned their lives around and were consequently of great value to their families and communities.
April 18, 2008 at 8:49 am
Everyone. Please note that this story has been updated.
April 18, 2008 at 9:30 am
Well I managed to start my morning off crying, seeing this horrific picture of a needless and senseless killing. I’m outraged, and yet feel as defenseless as these beautiful animals against all these politicians who don’t see the big pictures of what good the wolves do for the ecosystem, not to mention the dollars they bring in from tourism, from those who come to their states to see the wolves. I, myself am one of those types of people. I go out annually to see the wolves. But it sounds like I’m going to have to spend my money in states that don’t have idiots with guns, that just kill for the fun of it. I have no issue with hunting if you eat what you kill, as a means of feeding yourself and your family. But this is just awful. If I’m punishing an entire state over a few, so be it. Maybe the people of the state will prosecute those who are doing these dreadful deeds when they realize the tourist dollars aren’t coming in like they once were. I cannot and will not give my money to a state that condones, nor does nothing about these barbarric acts of cruelty. I guess I’ll be looking for a new place to vacation. Idaho and Wyoming just lost my business. And I will make it my duty to get the word out to all my clients and friends to let them know what these states are doing. The wolf is the reason we have domesticated dogs today, Myself, being a very successful groomer, trust me, the word will spread….and a picture is worth a thousand words and alot of people will see what these states and their government are doing. I’m just sickened by this whole situation.
April 18, 2008 at 10:09 am
Remember everyone. This sort of thing is legal in just about every state for killing coyotes, another social family-oriented animal. While they may not be endangered, are our actions still justifiable?
That is why I wrote Suburban Howls to show how (eastern) coyotes are pretty cool too!
April 18, 2008 at 10:48 am
Shirley,
You and your friends come to Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park instead. We have our own resident wolf there. Just one but hopefully more will follow. Although if the Whyoming Plan can’t be stopped this is unlikely. Be sure and make comments at trail head check points that you would love to see wolves there. Colorado has a better wolf protection plan IF they make it here on their own.
April 18, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Jon Way,
You open up a whole new can of dogs when you start talking about coyote hunting. I’m still forming my opinon on that subject. I would say I don’t really have a problem with guys who go out and do it the hard way and in moderation. But common sense tells me that killing them en masse and the coyote killing contests that groups like Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife host can’t be a good thing.
I’ve only shot one coyote in my entire life, and primarily because I thought it was posing an immediate threat to my dogs. I have to admit, I’ve loved dogs my whole life. So killing one felt strange. I don’t think it’s something I could get in to. I really enjoy watching and listening to coyotes, though. I think they are an under-appreciated critter.
April 18, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Cat - Speaking of the wolf in RMNP, what is the latest on this wolf? I haven’t heard anything of late and I’m curious if there has been any recent sightings, tracks, howls, etc…
April 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Hoosier,
I fail to see the issues with the thread you posted.. It shows how many sportsmen, ranchers, and other members of the west feel about the whole reintroduction process. There was a lot of misconceptions sold to Ranchers, Farmers, Hunters, and trappers.
The issues that bring up such contention between Ranchers, hunters, and others is being lied to by the FWS and state game deprtments about what was going to happen and what is actually happening. IMHO we (i included my self in that group) have every right to be angry about the how the origional plan is being carried out and how things are transpiring.
While all of this outrage is being brought up about the legal take of wolves, most states are thinking about the largest supporters of wildlife and habitat who foot the vast majority of the bill to manage wildlife, it comes directly from hunters, fishermen, and ranchers. Ranchers generally have the most productive land for ungulates so they are burdened with that responsibility as well.
Most are not fighting wolf reintroduction because of senseless greed or jealousy.. Its because they are trying to preserve there way of life which goes back many generation in most cases.
BTW, Here is the article for those who didn’t click Hoosiers thread..
Bulletin Number 26 Jan-Mar 2008
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery by George Dovel
One of four wolves shot by USDA Wildlife Services personnel north of Mountain Home, Idaho in September 2006 after the wolves continued to kill cattle on a rancher’s private land in July and August. This wolf, the alpha male of the newly formed “Danskin Pack”, was not weighed but its weight was estimated at 120-130 pounds.
During spring of 2006 an Idaho rancher reported wolf activity on private land several miles north of Mountain Home, Idaho. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) confirmed it was a new pack containing two adult wolves and three pups. During July and August 2006, USDA Wildlife Services (WS) examined four of the rancher’s calves that were killed and confirmed that at least three and probably the fourth were killed by those wolves on the rancher’s private land. continued on page 2 Page 2 THE OUTDOORSMAN Jan-Mar 2008
What They Didn’t Tell You… continued from page 1 In September 2006 the two adult wolves and two of the pups were killed by a Wildlife Services helicopter team and the other pup was not located again. An earlier study involving WS found that only one-in-six wolf-killed calves are discovered in time for FWS to determine the cause of death and enable compensation to be paid.
How Many Wolves are Enough? By 2006 many people in the West were aware that minimum estimated fall wolf numbers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming already exceeded the criteria for delisting wolves by several hundred percent. But few seem aware that the FWS agenda to allow this to happen was exposed by wildlife ecologist Dr. Charles Kay way back in 1993 – before any Canadian wolves were transplanted into the three Northern Rocky Mountain states.
In an article entitled, “Wolves in the West – What the government does not want you to know about wolf recovery” in the August 1993 issue of Petersen’s Hunting, Dr. Kay asked the question, “If wolves are brought back how many are enough?” He pointed out that the federal government’s recovery plan announced that when 10 breeding pairs (approximately 100 wolves) existed in each of the three recovery areas for three consecutive years, wolves would be declared recovered and removed from the Endangered Species list. Then Dr. Kay also pointed out that to prevent harmful inbreeding and protect against random environmental changes, most scientists believed that a minimum population of 1,500 wolves must be achieved.
When he attempted to find out why such a low number was being sought for recovery FWS could not produce evidence of any scientific research to justify such a low recovery number. Kay reasoned that when recovery goals of 100 wolves in each area were achieved, wolf activists could rightfully claim that the goals were inadequate and win lawsuits to keep them protected. He wrote, “Needless to say, 1,500 to 2,000 wolves will have a much greater impact on ungulate numbers, hunting opportunities and livestock operations than that projected in government reports.”
In “Wolves in the West,” Dr. Kay citied abundant scientific studies and facts to disprove the government’s claim that expanded wolf numbers would have limited impact on big game populations and harvests. He argued that with 50,000 wolves already occupying North America, wolves were not a biologically endangered species and their listing served personal agendas that had nothing to do with conservation. Scientific Game Management Threatened He urged readers to provide their input to the Wolf Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with copies to their Congressmen and Senators demanding the government stop spreading misinformation and tell the public the true impacts of wolf recovery. He added, “It is also time for sportsmen, livestock operators, and other concerned citizens to form a coalition and launch a national educational campaign or scientific game management will be only a memory.”
FWS Attacks Dr. Kay Six years after the 10 breeding pairs per area was established as the criterion for delisting, Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs included Appendix 9 in the draft EIS stating that a questionnaire had been mailed to 43 wolf biologists in Nov.-Dec. 1992 asking whether they agreed with the minimum criteria of 10 pairs established in 1987. The names of the 25 biologists who reportedly responded and the specific answers they provided were not included.
Meanwhile Bangs initiated a letter-writing campaign to discredit Dr. Kay among his peers and elsewhere. Instead Kay’s scientific associates defended him and rebuked Bangs for his attempt to destroy Dr. Kay’s scientific reputation while also attempting to suppress legitimate scientific opinion.
10 Breeding Pairs - an Elaborate Deception In 1996 Dr. Kay wrote “Wolf Recovery, Political Ecology, And Endangered Species” in which he described a scenario where both environmentalists and FWS knew that people would refuse to accept 1500-2000 wolves yet also knew courts would insist on having that many or even more wolves to constitute a minimum viable population (MVP). Kay presented strong evidence, which has never been refuted, that the 10 breeding pairs per area or 300 wolves in the three states was simply an elaborate deception designed to establish core wolf breeding areas to populate the entire West with wolves.
Following the 2007 announcement by FWS of its intention to de-list the wolves in 2008, the agency issued a minimum estimated wolf population in the three states of ~1500. And on May 8, 2007, the nonprofit environmental law clinic, Earthjustice, sent FWS a documented 35-page objection to delisting wolves in the three states. A major objection to de-listing was that wolves in all three states do not meet the MVP of 2,500-5000 that computer models indicate is necessary to insure survival of any species for the next 100 years.
The Objection, filed on behalf of the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and the Humane Society of the U.S., points out that the 1979 Minnesota population of 1,235 wolves in 138 packs did not qualify for delisting and asks how only 300 wolves in 30 packs in three states could possibly meet delisting criteria, which should be comparable to Minnesota.
The Prophet Was Ignored In 1996 Dr. Kay cited the same example as well as a federal court ruling that approximately 4,500 spotted owls (2,180 breeding pairs) were needed to meet ESA requirements. Everything that he predicted has come to pass and the wildlife managers in at least two of the three states continue to promote higher wolf populations.
Jan-Mar 2008 THE OUTDOORSMAN Page 3 On January 14, 2008 Idaho F&G Director Cal Groen authored a News Release titled, “Wolves Are Here to Stay.” He emphasized that wolves will be managed like deer and elk but with the following differences: Allow Wilderness Packs to Increase “The point of wolf management will be to stabilize numbers, not to cut wolves to an absolute minimum. In fact, the (wolf) plan recognizes wilderness area packs as ‘core’ populations and as ‘source’ areas for surrounding regions. “One other thing we know: Our public surveys show that once wolf populations are delisted and managed, animosity toward wolves will substantially decline.” Groen ended his press release with the comment, “the state of Idaho has promised the nation that wolves are here to stay and we will manage viable and healthy populations.”
According to an Idaho Statesman article posted at 5:01 P.M. on January 15, retired IDFG Salmon Region Supervisor Gary Power, who is now F&G Commissioner from the Salmon Region, told Idaho House Resource Committee members that Idaho has more than 800 wolves in 72 documented packs and 41 breeding pairs. The Statesman quoted Power, “(The Governor) believes wolves are here to stay and our job is to balance between the main user groups*, and we intend to.” No F&G Plan to Reduce Wolf Population The article continued, “Idaho’s plan is to keep at least 15 breeding pairs, though there is no plan to actively try to reduce the population, currently at more than 40 (breeding) pairs, to that level. (emphasis added) (* “the main user groups” are hunters who pay IDFG 33 million dollars annually to support game conservation and management, plus thousands of Idahoans who produce food, housing and other essentials from wise use of our natural resources, and environmental extremists who contribute little or nothing to wildlife conservation and management or to the rest of society but achieve their “user group” status with intimidation and threats).
By infiltrating every federal and state natural resource management agency and many universities during the past 35 years, these extremists have substituted their radical agenda for sound resource management. They have even hijacked the term “Conservation” – changing its meaning from “the protection, planned management and wise use of natural resources” (Gasaway et al.) to restoration of native plants and large meat-eating predators in a made-made wilderness that restricts human use.
Second only to Alaska in total wilderness acres, Idaho’s wilderness areas provided a nucleus population of elk and deer 40 years ago when IDFG biologists had over-harvested elk everywhere else except in the Panhandle. Director Groen’s announcement that surplus wilderness wolves will be used to populate surrounding regions reflects F&G’s allegiance to the real FWS wolf recovery agenda.
The Real FWS Wolf Recovery Agenda That agenda has been promoted in “Society for Conservation Biology” publications by federal biologists involved in wolf recovery since Canadian wolves were first transplanted. David Mech’s “The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations” appeared in the 1995 Volume. 9(2) issue of “Conservation Biology.” In 2001, environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund, joined with the National Park Service in creating a more sophisticated magazine called “Conservation Magazine” designed to sell the wildlands/biodiversity agenda to academia.
In 2004 FWS Wolf Team Leader Ed Bangs praised a BS thesis by a biology student concerning non-lethal wolf “control” (later published in Conservation) and announced he had hired her as a wolf “specialist”. Wildlife biologists in all three recovery states knew about the numbers deception but only Wyoming G&F, under pressure from its Governor, attempted to hold FWS to the original de-listing criteria. IDFG Director Groen’s Jan. 14th News Release declared the Department’s intention only to “stabilize” (halt the dramatic annual increase in) existing wolf populations in Idaho. Because IDFG estimates Idaho had a minimum population of 732 wolves in the fall of 2007 that means F&G intended to maintain a minimum of at least seven times as many wolves in Idaho as we were told would exist after recovery. But pretending that the biologists’ estimated minimum fall wolf population is near the actual wolf population is simply another deception misleading Idahoans and their elected officials as will be illustrated later in this article.
Public input on the Draft Wolf Plan was accepted by IDFG through December 31, 2007 and that input was scheduled to be provided to the Commission during its January 15-18, 2008 meeting. The Commission would then discuss and adopt a final wolf plan during a legally advertised meeting that was open to the public.
Wolf Plan Ignores Idaho Wildlife Policy Instead, on January 14, 2008, without knowledge or approval of the full Commission in a public meeting, Director Groen issued the News Release advising how wolves will be managed and on the following day Commissioner Power told the House Resource Committee members how wolves will be managed. Although the full Commission did not adopt a wolf plan until March 6, 2008, F&G publicized its intent to maintain 500-700 wolves. Meanwhile a closed-door Commission session was held in which the Commissioners were apparently informed of legal complications they might encounter if they managed wolves to benefit Idaho citizens. Whether or not that information is completely accurate, the Wolf Management Plan announced by Groen and Power clearly violates Idaho Wildlife Policy (I.C. Sec. 36-103).
THE OUTDOORSMAN Jan-Mar 2008 What They Didn’t Tell You… Not controlling wolves in Idaho wilderness just as they are not controlled in national parks will ultimately result in the same depletion of big game and other prey species and rapid turnover in wolf packs. It is important to remember that Idaho law requires F&G to manage wildlife to provide continued supplies for hunters, fishermen and trappers to pursue and harvest – but it is being ignored.
Pretending that limiting the number of hunters who can harvest wildlife is somehow providing continued supplies of wildlife for all hunters to harvest (sustained yields) is absurd. Limiting harvest opportunity for everyone is a last resort tool that must be used when all of the other wildlife management tools at the Commission’s disposal have failed to halt population and harvest declines.
Conclusions From Denali Wolf Study The ongoing study of wolves in Alaska’s Denali National Park, initiated in 1986 by David Mech and Layne Adams, with Adams heading the study team since 1993, has revealed exactly what happens to wolves when their numbers are not controlled.
Prior to 1980 Mount Mckinley National Wildlife Refuge comprised about 2.2 million acres but in 1980 the name was changed to Denali National Park and the size was increased by 4 million acres. Subsistence hunting and trapping by local area residents is still allowed in the newer 4 million acres, and the territories of several wolf packs in the original 2 million wilderness acres include land outside the Park where wolf hunting and trapping is also allowed. Yet despite the opportunity for humans to hunt and trap most of the wolves at some time during the year, only 3% of annual wolf deaths are caused by humans. Of the remaining wolves dying from so-called “natural” causes, 60% are killed by wolves in other packs. The average pack lasts three years or less and wolf population declines ultimately follow prey declines.
The Denali Caribou herd, which numbered in the tens of thousands for many decades, declined to 10,000 by the 1960s and numbered only about 1,000 by the late 1970s. Studies from the late 1970’s indicated that early calf survival was very poor even though adult cows were in good condition and had adequate food resources. Predation on young calves was concluded to be the major factor in the population decline and, despite some gradual increases during a series of mild winters, the herd has remained well below 10% of its former long-term numbers and remains incapable of recovering from the predator pit without intensive wolf control.
Warnings from Experts to Congress In the late 1980s 15 scientists were secretly selected to provide their expert input to Congress about Northern Rockies wolf recovery and several expressed serious concerns. Some group members were academic biologists with limited research experience but bona fide scientists included Dr. A.T. Bergerud whose published research on the mortality impact of wolves on elk, moose, Dall sheep and caribou in northern British Columbia is supported by top Canadian wildlife scientists.
Dr. Bergerud reported that membership in the elite group was kept secret even from its members and they were not asked whether or not they supported wolf recovery. They were asked only to provide the impact of introducing wolves to maintain a population of approximately 10 breeding pairs in each of the three proposed recovery areas over a 10-20 year period. Dr. Bergerud, Dr. Robert Taylor and others disagreed with reintroduction of any wolves unless wolf numbers were strictly managed from the beginning – including in Yellowstone National Park – to prevent severe declines in elk and moose populations. They also warned that 10 breeding pairs exceeded total wolf habitat in YNP and the surplus wolves would spill over into other areas, causing unacceptable increases in livestock predation.
In other words, regardless of how many wolves are considered necessary to maintain genetic diversity, there was not enough designated wilderness in the three recovery areas to support even the proposed 30 breeding pairs without excessively impacting existing prey species and ranchers’ livestock.
With Congress insisting that the impact of wolf reintroduction must be minimal, wolf biologists began providing false information regarding the number of prey animals the average wolf would kill each year and about how many prey animals actually existed Ignoring the studies indicating that wolves kill two to three times as many prey animals as they can consume, the wolf advocates promoted the lie that wolves kill only what they can eat. The Wolf EIS estimated the average wolf would kill only 12 big game animals per year in YNP* – including both elk and deer. (* All subsequent studies in YNP found the elk kill per wolf per year has averaged between 18 and 36.)
Predicted Wolf Impact Based on False IDFG Data IDFG biologists Kuck, Nelson, Rachael and Hanson provided the 1993 FWS Wolf EIS with highly inflated wild ungulate prey numbers for the 20,700 sq. mile Central Idaho Primary Analysis Area. The claimed average post-season elk and deer populations were six times higher than the numbers counted by helicopter and recorded by IDFG biologists in any unit in the PAA. In a September 24, 1993 draft letter to Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs, IDFG Director Jerry Conley admitted that IDFG personnel had provided the data and the analysis in the Wolf EIS concerning the impact of introducing 100 wolves into central Idaho. His letter claimed a recovering wolf population “will rarely cause unacceptable impacts” and stated, “We believe these analyses provide a realistic picture of the probable environmental consequences of a recovered wolf population (about 100 animals) in central Idaho based on the best available data.” (emphasis added)
Jan-Mar 2008 THE OUTDOORSMAN Page 5 The fact that FWS allowed the state game agencies to provide unrealistic impacts based on inaccurate data does not excuse Bangs’ failure to correct that misinformation once he knew it was false. On that same day, September 24, 1993, I provided Bangs with three pages of testimony, with exhibits documenting the gross exaggerations in the central Idaho ungulate prey base. Because Idaho’s Wolf Oversight Committee approved communications from Conley to Bangs, I urged them to correct the misinformation contained in the EIS and in Conley’s draft letter. Instead they simply directed Conley to substitute the words “reasonable estimate” for “realistic picture” in the final version of his letter dated October 12, 1993 – thereby allowing F&G’s false information and erroneous predictions to remain in the EIS.
“Nothing Wrong With Lying to the Public” In a February 17 1994 meeting with Sandy Donley and me, Oversight Committee member Don Clower told us the Committee knew the prey population figures were highly inflated when they were given to FWS but said that was necessary to support the rapid build-up of wolves that would occur in the Nonessential Experimental recovery option. Then he said he saw nothing wrong with lying to the public to accomplish that goal.
In a March 9, 1994 letter to Bangs signed by its Co-Chairman Jack Lavin, the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee formally supported the “Nonessential Experimental” recovery option over the “No Wolf Introduction” option. Although three of the seven voting Committee members, including Co-Chairman George Bennett, withdrew their support for that option in a letter to Bangs dated October 17, 1994, their letter was ignored. The IDFG 1993 and, later, the 1994 big game census information I provided to Bangs indicated there were only about 40,000 total post-hunting-season ungulates in the central Idaho primary analysis area instead of the 241,400 claimed in the Wolf EIS.
In a private conversation with me Bangs admitted that the claimed populations were “probably exaggerated” yet in the August 16, 1994 Federal Register he wrote, “Millions of acres of public lands contain hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates (Service 1994) and currently provide more than enough habitat to support a recovered wolf population in central Idaho.” (emphasis added).
Oversight Committee Bias But even if FWS and IDFG were willing to lie about the declining prey base in central Idaho, the Wolf Oversight Committee was formed by the Legislature in 1993 to protect Idaho’s interests in the formation of a wolf plan. Why did that Committee fail to do its job? One answer is that four of the seven voting members on the Oversight Committee supported the FWS/IDFG plan to import Canadian wolves and protect and manage them as a new big game species. Jack Lavin and Don Clower were hand-picked by IDFG to support its agenda and both Resource Committee chairmen had a history of supporting IDFG agendas that were unpopular with grassroots sportsmen and other natural resource users.
Senate Resources Committee Chairman. Laird Noh was also actively involved in The Nature Conservancy whose goal to restore wolves and grizzly bears in a network of core roadless areas was already being implemented. But regardless of its members’ personal agendas, the Oversight Committee was required by law to develop a plan that included consideration of local economies, custom, culture and private property rights. Instead it virtually copied the FWS Plan and several of its members publicly ridiculed county government efforts to include protection of domestic livestock and pets on private property.
The October 17, 1994 letter signed by Bennett, Ted Hoffman, Stan Boyd and non-voting member Lois Van Hoover, listed multiple violations of the ESA in the proposed FWS Rule and declared those members’ intent to recommend the Idaho Legislature refuse to approve the wolf plan approved by the Committee. F&G Illegally Agreed To Canadian Transplants I.C. Sec. 36-715(2) expressly prohibited IDFG from entering into any agreement with any entity of the U.S. Government concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute but that law had already been brazenly violated by IDFG Director Jerry Conley.
On September 27, 1994, without authorization from the Legislature or even the full Oversight Committee, Conley signed a letter to Bangs supporting the FWS Experimental Rule and agreeing to work with FWS to reintroduce wolves from British Columbia and Alberta into the Idaho experimental population area. On that same day, Conley also delivered a Special Permit to Bangs in Boise, signed by IDFG Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker, authorizing FWS to “release a maximum of 15 Canadian wolves in Central Idaho for up to five years or until 2 breeding pairs are each documented to produce 2 or more pups that survive until 31 December for two consecutive years.”
The permit stated that the wolf releases would be conducted in accordance with the Idaho wolf management plan. Idaho AG, Congress Ignore False EIS Info Although the plan was soundly rejected by the Legislature, Bangs and FWS went ahead and conducted the wolf release – legally from their standpoint – with the signed agreement endorsing the Nonessential Experimental Option and Rules and the signed Wolf Release Permit both in their possession.
On January 25, 1995, Idaho Attorney General Alan Lance was provided with documentation of the misinformation and Code violations but no action was taken against Conley or any of the Oversight Committee members who authorized illegal issuance of the agreements.
What They Didn’t Tell You… Un-refuted evidence of IDFG and FWS providing the erroneous information to Congress to justify wolf reintroduction was included in the hearing record of a Congressional Investigative Committee. Also included was an Aug. 12, 1994 letter from Bangs to FWS’s Charles Lobdell insisting that he de-emphasize the wolves that already existed in Idaho and thus show unanimous FWS support for reintroducing Canadian wolves.
Bangs Ignored ESA Subspecies Criteria In that letter Bangs changed the definition of a confirmed wild wolf to be protected under the ESA to any animal that looks and acts like a wolf and has either survived in the wild or reproduced in the wild. He boldly asserted that neither domesticated wolves nor wolf-dog hybrids can survive in the wild and said any animal that has been observed to survive is “confirmed” as a wild wolf. By providing that new definition, Bangs ignored 20 years of scientific deliberation during which the FWS Deputy Solicitor ultimately determined that only the distinct subspecies known to have inhabited an area could be reintroduced to satisfy ESA requirements. (Here I will add that almost all sub-species of wolves were declared one and the same and the smaller Rocky Mountain wolves existance in Idaho was ignored so the larger Canadian wolf could be introduced).
Bangs paved the way to protect and propagate assorted wolf-dog, wolf-coyote and wolf-wolf hybrids in the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf Recovery Areas.
Minnesota’s wolf population has exceeded the 1,250-1,400 delisting goal since the late 1970s and the Michigan/Wisconsin delisting goal of 100 has been exceeded since the winter of 1993-94. Thirteen years later on January 29, 2007, with an estimated minimum population of 4,000 wolves in the three states, FWS finally delisted the Western Great Lakes DPS of Gray Wolves.
Another FWS Deception Exposed But during a recently completed 2-year study, evolutionary biologists Leonard and Wayne genetically tested 68 of those wolves and found that none of them were the Eastern Timber Wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) that existed when they were listed as “threatened” in Minnesota. They found the wolves were crossbred with local coyotes (Canis latrans) and Eastern Canadian Wolves (Canis lycaon) or combinations from crossbred offspring. Only 31% of the wolves tested had any Eastern Timber Wolf genes and none were purebred. Yet all of the genetic samples taken and preserved from Eastern Timber Wolves from the early 20th century tested purebred with no evidence of crossbreeding with coyotes or other wolves.
When confronted with this information by the news media in November 2007, FWS Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team Leader Rolph Peterson (Bangs’ Great Lakes counterpart) admitted they had known all along that the wolves were crossbreeding with coyotes. When one of the evolutionary biologists suggested the wolves should be re-listed, FWS Wolf guru David Mech responded, “It is not clear what would be gained by keeping the Midwestern wolf population on the endangered species list.”
- - - - - -
Note from the webmaster. This essay has been floating around in one form or another for several years. I let Ryan post it because it is a good example of what the more sophisticated of the anti-wolf restoration people read.
It is full of incorrect facts, bad assumptions and rests on conspiracy theory. I hope someone will take the time to go through it in detail and point them out.
Ralph Maughan
April 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm
So, in other words, it’s all a giant conspiracy by hippy biologists who infiltrated the government?
Let me guess, Ed Bangs rides in a black helicopter to Area 51 for lunch with Elvis every Wednesday.
April 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Ryan, geez what a filibuster and propaganda. I filter my info. by the source…your data is in support of hunters, trappers and ranchers, all of the people who remove as many living things as they can from the ecosystem to make a profit. I’ll take my info. from scientists and people that don’t seek to make a profit off of the land. I failed to see the connection between midwest wolves and western wolves unless the populations begin to mingle.
April 18, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“I took photos, then went and found IDFG law enforcement who happened to be nearby, picking up a dead elk.”
Ralph, I find it really interesting that you left out the end of that sentence from the news story. The part about the “IDFG officers were picking up a dead elk that had been killed by wolves in somebody’s backyard.”
Just an observation.
April 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm
jon way,
i agree with you about the coyote being an example of the same ludicrous lack of regard for life, and exercise of the same arbitrary “management” (how they’re still allowed to use that word perplexes me).
This is a culture of death whether we’re talking about coyotes, wolves, beavers, bighorn, bears, bison, or entire systems.
it’s incredible to watch the absurdly contrived manipulation of biology, management protocol, policy, terminology etc… all of which gets arranged to do nothing more than re-enforce the existing special-interest group(s) hold of control and perpetuate this culture of death.
April 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Brian Ellway wrote:
Ralph, I find it really interesting that you left out the end of that sentence from the news story. The part about the “IDFG officers were picking up a dead elk that had been killed by wolves in somebody’s backyard.”
Just an observation.
I say: I’m not aware I left anything out. Tell where and I’ll probably add it.
April 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Brian - FYI - two IDFG CO’s were indeed picking up an elk near a house in the Salmon River canyon when I saw them on April 4th, the day B160 was shot. What’s the big deal?
Apparently wolves had killed an elk near a house which lies in the heart of wolf country. If wolves killed an elk next to my cabin, I would have NOT called IDFG, rather, sat back and watched the wolves eat their meal.
This is Idaho, for goodness sake, not Iowa, Kansas or LA - we live among four-legged predators including wolves, and why the fuss when an wolf kills an elk?
Ryan - your comment is overlong and fraught with the usual anti-wolf stuff and maybe it’s time for Ralph to put a limit on words for a post. As for any credibility on articles published by “The Outdoorsman”, it’s a rag put out by anti-wolfer George Dovel of Horseshoe Bend, Idaho.
April 18, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Ralph,
I completely agree I would like to see where the facts contradict what has been written. (not meant in a scarcastic or taunting way at all) I’d like to know.
Brian,
I don’t really understand your Culture of Death link, can you please expand. You average farmer commits ecological tradgedies on 100 times that magnitude every year. Whats worse, a trampled water hole or 100 acres of land completely stripped of any native flora or fauna then polluted with chemicals?
Jimbob,
I don’t put all my eggs in one basket. Scientists are still human and most studies are jaded.
I have watched the salmon debate for years now and have seen so many different studies about salmon that blatantly contradict each other its laughable. The same is happening in wolf management on both sides right now.
I have yet to meet a rich rancher (besides a dude rancher who bought a big piece of heaven) Hunting costs money, although outfitters do make a living off of it. Trapping is more of a past time now as there is no money in it at all.
April 18, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I think it’s a waste of time to try and respond to Ryan’s post. He’s not changing his mind and he’s taking up a huge amount of space on this blog — a tactic used on other blogs to discourage readers from bothering to read posts.
On this sunny April Saturday afternoon, go take a walk, look for wolves, or have tea with folks who “get it”. Don’t waste energy having a pissing match with a skunk who will never “get it” or trying to teach a pig to sing.
April 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm
After reading the entire diatribe of Ryan’s and the propaganda of Brian Schweitzer’s, I am not sure which one offends me more. They both insult my intelligence.
April 18, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Ryan says: “we…have every right to be angry about the how the origional plan is being carried out and how things are transpiring.”
In my experience, very few people who are “angry about…the original plan” have actually taken time to read it or the endangered species act. If anyone has a right to be angry with FWS, it is supporters of endangered species conservation. FWS has reneged on their legal duty.
“While all of this outrage is being brought up about the legal take of wolves, most states are thinking about the largest supporters of wildlife and habitat who foot the vast majority of the bill to manage wildlife, it comes directly from hunters, fishermen, and ranchers.”
First, the point of the post is that wolves continue to be taken legally AND ILLEGALLY–wasn’t that in the title? Second, are you f*#king kidding me?! You include ranchers as those who “foot..the bill” for wildlife. Seriously?! Ryan, you just lost any credibility you had. What are they paying per AUM these days, about 1/9th fair market value to graze cattle on public lands? And what is the reimbursement rate for livestock lost to wolves? If anything, we are footing the bill for public lands ranching.
April 18, 2008 at 7:06 pm
ryan,
not on public lands they don’t.
JB,
i admire your ability to maintain respectful composure
April 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I am a semi transplant to the Mt Id, WY area. haveing venturing here from the south, several years back, and for the most part, unaware of all the politics of the area. I usually never read the paper, listen to radio when i got to gardiner,, i simply would go to the parks and stay there for months at a time.. Now that i am a part time resident and buisness owner near the park…and am seeing these things go on, day after day,, week after week, month after month, and reading the recent histories, and getting filled in on park and land politics,,I often wonder if i have made a mistake, I just never thought it was of this magnitude. sure, i have been participation in this forum from time to time, but it is just real disheartning.. all this wolf killing for cows, bison killing for cows, bear killing for cows, coyote kiling for cows, bighorns die from sheep,,,I come from the south, and have been through the desegregation period, and quite frankly, am happy when i get away from there now, as all you read about is welfare and how we (suthners) are still abusing folks, hanging black kids in jail and on an on, and its a crock of s–t….i hate welfare of all sorts, and gosh knows we have our share of the welfare crowds.., but if the politics of ranching is welfare as it sure seems to be… they are no better in any form or fashion of the bums and idiots that exploit the food welfare crowds in the south. both white and black.. they have learned to exploit and gain from a stupid useless system which does nothing but promote more handouts and promote laziness, so if any of the welfare handout ranchers are out there,, read my lips, you are no better than the bums who hang out at walmart with six kids as 15 year old mothers,,,, you hear that,,,, If you are working keeping your ranch at break even just to keep up the lifestyle or as one person told me, the old hat and belt buckle lifestyle or following ole dads footsteps,, wake up!!!! stop living off the backs of others, because no matter how you cut it, YOU ARE. if you are getting subsidy or free rides that others cant, because they are working for a paying living,, you are a welfare recipient…wolves and bears and bison are nt your problem problem!! Its you wont face the hard facts and do what others do who are too proud to take the handout, make the move and do something that pays bills with out standing in the welfare line with your hand out. begging from essentially, ME!! get a real job that pays for work, and stop stealing from the american public.
Now, i know this wont solve anything, but the federal govt took away a century of a way of life from the south,,,why the hell cant they take away the same way of life from these ranching outfits that dont cut it….they sure didnt mind taking it from the south 40 years ago,, whats the hold up now!!!
I sincerely hoped my reading the paper out here would be a new and joyous revelation as i began a new part of my life out here, but now,, i dread reading the paper here as much as i do at home.. i guess the grass never gets any greener,,only more red from blood of the animals in the way!
April 18, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Cat,
I have been to RMNP about 10 times since the reported wolf sightings. I have hiked the area extensively where it was spotted. Though I saw really large tracks the weekend after the sighting, and a few weeks later more that were not fresh… I haven’t seen anything in months. My friends who live in Estes say that no one has reported seeing him again. So he may have moved on.
Sadly, I was told by someone today that several elk in RMNP have tested positive for Chronic Wasting desease. The plan thatis expected to go forward to have a sharp shooting cull of elk is a bit useless in this scenario, which I feared would happen soon. Wolves know a sick elk long before a sharp shooter can see one. haven’t confirmed that CWD made it’s way there yet, but the source is generally very reliable.
There is a real media Blitz in Greely right now about conservation topics. The big news is that The Cache La Poudre made the list of most threatened rivers. This and the dam proposal give rise to some trouble ahead. It also doesn’t help the river that a huge amount of farmers drain it for irrigation.
There hads been a ton of other stuff too, you should check it out in the Greeley Tribune…maybe they are gearing up for Earth Day?
April 18, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Well said, Kim.
Lynne: What do you plan on doing with your photo above?? We have a list of people/agencies/newspapers we would like to send it to! If you are doing the same, perhaps I will see it soon printed for everyone to see the immoral behavior.
And are you healed from your assault??? by Ron Gillette?
April 18, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Ryan,
The way of life that you are referring to is the same life that nearly wiped bison and wolves out of the west in the first place. So, again what is it you are preserving? (sounds like the bank account) This lifestyle you are talking about shows little respect for habitat, wildlife as a whole, and the very privilege that you have in using the land. Your way of living is not in danger because of a rising wolf population, but rather the attitude you have toward change. However, the change you are seeing was a norm when and before livestock hit the hillsides. Remember wolves, bears, bison, mt. lions, wild horses and coyote’s were there first what you took/take from them is now being returned to its NATURAL state. Mother nature has a very elaborate way of maintaining itself until you throw in a NON-native species. So, I fail to see your distress because for the first time you may have realized that West belongs to the wild not the Rancher.
April 19, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“were there first what you took/take from them ” I think it unfair to say “YOU TOOK/TAKE” I don’t beleive any 1 person or group is solely responsible for the US’s current state, it’s a result of all humans over time, and I don’ t beleive any of us here were around before livestock “hit the hillsides” to have seen what it was “really” like. I just wish people would realize these things and fail to continue to think they know everything about every aspect of nature or what is natural. It is also unreasonable to urge the removal or limitation of posts from those who are not in complete agreement with the spirit of this site. It is because of all of these things that many do not read commentaries following articles and posts. Also, too many tend to say in text what they wouldn’t dare in person, or at least they wouldn’t be as abrasive. It is good to see such things as respecting people’s ability to carry a balanced or uncombative conversation. Bashing publications that oppose one’s points of view is unproductive as well. It would be very nice to see productive, or at least civil, comment conversations for once. I come here to see what is going on with wolves through the articles posted. It is quite disappointing to read most comments though some are insightful. My thoughts.
April 19, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Heather, Don Riley - have Ralph give you my e-mail and we’ll discuss the photos and their use. The same with anyone else.
As for healing from the assault, my right hand and arm still has some numbness, but fortunately no bones were broken according to x-rays taken. There is a “No Contact Order” in effect so that my attacker cannot come near me. But I am still somewhat afraid.
April 19, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Beth - The Post from Ryan was 4500 words. Maybe you have time to read his lengthy tirade against wolves, but I don’t. This is a blog of wolf, bison and wildlife supporters. If Ryan wants to post here, then he can cut about 4000 words. I see nothing wrong with bashing out- right lies with regards to wolves or wolf restoration. There’s work to be done to save wolves, rather than have to scroll through 4500 anti-wolf words. My thoughts.
April 19, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“I don’t put all my eggs in one basket. Scientists are still human and most studies are jaded.”
I don’t know what you mean by “most studies are jaded”. Maybe you meant ‘most studies are biased’? In any case, I would like to know which studies you think are biased?
From what I have seen from most rancher types, they refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence from respected scientists published in peer reviewed science journals and instead turn to some obscure report in “Range” magazine that contradicts hundreds of other studies.
What should be obvious to any rational person is that a publication like “Range” magazine is not an objective source, it has an axe to grind. I wouldn’t trust “Range” magazine to give me the true facts about the state of our natural environment anymore than I would trust “High Times” to report the true facts about the potential harmfull effects of drug use.
Look, I know you think most scientists and biologists are your mortal enemies because their studies often come to conclusions you don’t like, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending that none of it is true will not help maintain the rancher way of life in the long run.
As time goes on, the ecological problems the planet is facing are becoming more and more apparent to everyone. If ranchers doggedly stick to their archaic and erroneous world-view and continue to show their disdain for any animal that doesn’t serve their narrow purposes (and for conservation efforts in general), it is inevitable that people will become more and more intolerant of ranchers and the way ranching is done right now.
So, it isn’t the wolf that poses a threat to the rancher’s way of life, it is the rancher’s own backward, ignorant attitudes that pose the greatest threat to the rancher’s continued existence.
April 19, 2008 at 5:00 pm
C. Walton,
As a biologist, the currently does not work for any agency in the government, I would say, from personal experience that most studies are in fact biased, I lost my job with an agency, because I would not “Jade” my reports to say what the agency felt was “right”…so, no matter what side of an issue I am on, I don’t have a lot of faith in any of the studies that have been done in the last few years.
April 19, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Lynn,
I reposted the link that hoosier posted on the forum so all could read it. If you would have read my post instead of counting the words you may have caught that. It is not necessarily my own opinion by any means.
Hoosier,
History shows that bison were killed in large part by the army and market killers in an attempt to subdue indians. Hunters also paid for all of the national wildlife refuges and in fact yellowstone park was started by a hunter. Wild Horses are a plague on the natual ecosystem, worse than cows per capita and there is little to no control on there numbers. (they were introduced by the spanish)
Brian,
I was refering to private lands, range cows are a delicate subject that I am researching more.
April 20, 2008 at 8:33 am
Ryan. My name is spelled Lynne. My editing program “counted” the 4500 words. Re. wild horses. The ones around here are highly controlled - meaning rounded up and shipped to auction, or left to stand pathetically in holding facilities. None of the Challis wild horse herd in Central Idaho were “introduced by the Spanish”. Wild horses are removed, while cattle numbers are rarely reduced.
April 20, 2008 at 8:47 am
Ryan - while you’re “researching” the “delicate subject” of range cows (I assume you mean those that graze on public land) you might keep this in mind. Ranchers pay $1.35/AUM for each cow and calf. AUM = Animal Unit Month. A person can’t feed a canary or probably a goldfish for $1.35/month. Sheep AUMs are 5 ewes with lambs for $1.35/month. For more information re. public lands livestock grazing, visit Western Watersheds Project’s website.
April 20, 2008 at 9:34 am
Save bears:
I have worked on several reports for state F&G agencies and never been asked to make changes to my results, though I was asked once to substitute the word “euthanize” for the word “kill,” which I declined to do.
I think your comment demonstrates why studies should be conducted at universities (that do not have a vested interest in the results), as opposed to state agencies. Agencies too often have a political interest in getting a particular result, which biases their study design, implementation and interpretation. This is also why so few internally-funded gray literature reports become peer-reviewed publications.
Personally, I believe it is important to be skeptical of every study. However, I would also note that we have no better process of determining what is factual and what is not factual–I would trust an article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Range Management over one in the publication, Range any day.
Ryan’s comment that “most studies are jaded” is problematic because it conveniently allows him to dismiss any and all science that disagree with his conclusions in favor of sources of information that agree with his own view. Sadly, this seems to be more and more the norm these days.
April 20, 2008 at 10:25 am
JB,
Just curious here, not arguing or anything.
Do you really believe that studies done by Universities don’t have “a vested interest” in results — in at least a LOT of cases?? That hasn’t been my experience.
Seems (to me) like most Universities depend on grants of one kind or another and those grants seem to come from one side or another of almost any issue. Yes, some studies that aren’t very controversial seem to fare well, but others don’t.
April 20, 2008 at 10:47 am
Layton,
I would agree that the various “sides” (funders) of grants often do have a vested interest in the outcomes. However, most university scientists are paid by the university (not grants, though this too varies), thus bringing an objective outlook to the issue being studied. Of course, you could argue that the researcher has a vested interest in receiving future funding from a source and so may feel compelled to bend to the will of the funder. So I guess, my answer to your question is that it depends. One thing is clear though, the university scientist (by and large) has much less of a reason to respond to pressure from a funder than someone whose salary comes directly from that funder.
April 20, 2008 at 10:59 am
JB,
You have a pretty good understanding of why I no longer work for an agency, and unfortunately, I am not currently pursuing anything with a university, I have seen to many things going on behind the scenes to every really put much faith in the biological industry, and yes, I say currently it is an industry, that is not always in it for the science, which is the reason I got my degree, was for the science…I am hoping at a future date, things will sway back to the middle, and we can get back to science, without the underlying goals of coming to a certain conclusion…
April 20, 2008 at 11:24 am
i always thought there were two types of wildlife biologist,,
the biologist that simply studies wildlife, how it lives, breeds and functions as a wild animal, a purist i guess would be a better word..
and then the adaptive wildlife biologist,,, the one that studies how best to incorporate wildlife into the “scheme of things” whether it be in the Everglades..the california coast or the rockies,,, in other words.. how are we gonna let em live with us without putting them in a zoo,, and of course, the two subsets of this type of biologist is the ones that work for the enviro concerns and the ones that work for the other competeing concerns,,,
April 20, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Kim,
What you’ve described here pretty well summarizes the differences between conservation biologists and “traditional” agency biologists. Note, I’m not saying that all biologists of either type necessarily fit your descriptions, just making a course generalization.
That said, I would argue that the job of managing wildlife is fundamentally different than the job of conserving it. Management requires agency decision makers to balance the interest of varied constituencies (some are better at the balancing part than others, as I’m sure Brian or Robert H. could tell you). In general, both groups of biologists start with the principle that conservation of NR is a good thing. However, conservation biologists elevate the conservation of ecological diversity so that it comes first and foremost–often with an “all else be damned” approach. Managers–who are beholden to interest groups and political pressure–cannot afford to take this type of stance, despite the fact that an increasing number of agency professionals would like to elevate the importance of conservation in NR decision-making. Like “save bears,” they simply cannot do so and still hold onto their jobs.
April 21, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Mr. Maughan – Although I guess I should thank you for publishing part of my Outdoorsman article, “What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery” on your blog, your claim, “It is full of incorrect facts, bad assumptions and rests on conspiracy theory” is not true.” Every fact reported in the article is thoroughly documented and has withstood challenges by the handful of wolf advocates who substitute brashness for truth. The only conspiracy that might have been implied, but was never categorized, was the FWS admission published by Dr. Kay that the minimum wolf criterion of 30 breeding pairs was political – not biological. I have never written or voiced any criticism of you or Ms. Stone. In my opinion your unsubstantiated unprofessional claims and her hate-filled ravings and name-calling are reasons that most rational people do not participate in this or similar forums.
April 21, 2008 at 9:37 pm
George Dovel,
Ryan posted your article as a comment. I think the article is pretty poor, but I don’t want to take the time to go through it and point out all the errors because it is so long.
If you want me to remove it, I will.
April 21, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Seems like there are a lot of rational people posting on this blog.. Mr. Dovel. To me personally, this wolf controversy is way out of line. The ESA supported wolf reintroduction, like any other endangered species, so that we would not lose them, as a species. That is the main point, not semantics like how many breeding pairs, (which was based on scientific analysis.) Sorry Ralph, I am going into this a bit! The point of the ESA was to be flexible enough to allow a species to inhabit its once natural range, even with lethal control for problem wolves with “your” livestock. In my opinion, it seems ranchers were never flexible enough for the reintroduction to happen even though they had the continual option of lethal control. I personally want wolves where I live. and I am not a rancher. NFMA says forestland is supposed to be mutlipurpose…public trust doctrine says forestland is for all. Currently, WY, ID are killing wolves at will and it makes me feel very pissed off.
April 22, 2008 at 12:27 am
George Dovel,
The main theme of your article is the supposed deception used by state wildlife agencies in order to push through wolf reintroduction. Unfortunately, I don’t believe you supported that conclusion very well. You mostly relied on anecdotes claiming that people like Don Clower and Ed Bangs admitted to lying. Since you cannot substantiate those claims I am afraid that your conspiracy theory is not very persuasive.
Several of the statistics you included in your article are not incorrect. The conclusions you reach based on that data is what I disagree with.
I have attempted to debate this issue