Some new wolf photos from Wyoming for lawsuit day
April 27, 2008 — Ralph MaughanToday, Monday April 28, EarthJustice is expected to file a lawsuit trying to overturn the delisting of wolves one month ago — the handover to virtually unrestricted state management. Wyoming management has resulted already in at least ten, and probably many more, dead wolves from what was the state’s population of 188 wolves. The photos below appear to be 4 of them.
Warning if you click on this article, the photos might disturb you. They have been all over the place on email.
It’s not clear where the photos came from, but the taxidermy shop in the photos, “High Country Taxidermy,” is in Pinedale, Wyoming.
The photos eventually made their way by email to a wolf supporter. It’s not clear if they were meant to inform this person or to make him feel bad.
There were a number of scattered comments from various people who had forwarded them. The first comment seems to be this one:
Subject: WY wolves
These were all killed in the upper green River.
They are all about 7-8 years old and weigh about 130-150 lbs.
The gray one was killed by Todd Stevie.
The rest were killed by the Feds.
I don’t know why privately killed and federally killed wolves would be lined up to be made into pelts or mounts at the same place. There is a rumor that Wyoming is now trying to make money off the wolves it shoots, by selling the pelts.
Regarding the size of the wolves, there are flat out no 150 pound wolves. These wolves look to be average size to me.
Few wolves reach the age of 7 or 8, nor do the teeth show the wear of a 7 year old wolf. No one person or group would stumble upon 4 wolves of this age.
It should be fun tracking down the story of how these wolves got shot and lined up for a photo.
April 28, 2008 at 12:05 am
i can’t believe we live in the 21st century
April 28, 2008 at 3:49 am
You would have thought we would have got past the senseless killing in the 21st century, but…
I guess some people just dont evolve quite as fast.
April 28, 2008 at 4:20 am
Disgusting, purely disgusting.
April 28, 2008 at 8:28 am
If you loved the millennia of civilization beginning with the late Neolithic up through the 20th century, you’ll love the 21st century.
My considered guess is that these were the four wolves killed in the livestock depredation control action near Cora, north of Pinedale, the wolves for which G&F issued kill permits to Wildlife Services because the ranch in question is on the trophy game-predatory animal boundary. However, as reported, these wolves were killed in the predatory animal zone, so the permits weren’t “necessary.”
Ralph, I’ve written Doug Honnold at Earthjustice and asked him to post all the legal documents regarding this case, because of its historical importance. It would be something for you to link to as well.
April 28, 2008 at 8:32 am
I’ve seen these photos already — on what I would consider to be a pretty red-neckish huntin’ discussion forum. Of course, most of the posters over there were whooping it up over the pictures, and making comments like, “well, it’s a good start.”
Me personally, I’ve stated before that I have no problem with wolves being shot after an honest, fair-chase hunt or otherwise when it’s really needed. And I grew up around hunting and agriculture, so photos of dead critters don’t bother me.
What bothers me is the yuck-yuck, vindictive reaction… as if wolves are some sort of vermin or enemy to be destroyed by any means possible. Most of the posts I read on that forum were dripping with it, and that pisses me off.
- - - -
I’ve written this before, but I want to do so again. On the part of the anti-wolf folks, the issue is almost entirely cultural resentment and conflict, and that’s why compensation for losses, better livestock practices, whether wolves deplete game populations, how many wolves live in the state, etc. are meaningless.
It would be the same if there were 50 wolves killing 5 calves or 500 wolves killing 50. When you look at the Mexican wolf area where there are only 50 wolves, the fury is even greater than Wyoming. My explanation is that the culture there is even more hostile to change and xenophobia is higher. Ralph Maughan
April 28, 2008 at 8:37 am
Hal,
I agree. It seems a bit too “drunk in the wods shooting at what ever moves with my semi-auto” to be good sportsmanship.
The fact that there seems to be some management/hunter type colaboration going on is disturbing.
April 28, 2008 at 8:58 am
“It would be the same if there were 50 wolves killing 5 calves…”
It WAS the same when there were 50 wolves killing 5 calves. Hell, I was in Utah when 253 made his trip; at that time, one wolf was considered a wolf problem.
April 28, 2008 at 11:00 am
Remember everyone, coyotes (the wolves’ similarly highly-evolved cousin) is shot like this on a daily basis just about nation-wide. We spend more money than the damage they cause to kill about 80,000 of them a year. Just b.c they can compensate for their losses, does this make it justifiable, esp. on our public lands? Personally, I don’t think so.
April 28, 2008 at 11:15 am
And, Jon, would you care to tell us WHY coyotes are being killed by “Wildlife Services” which is funded by the U.S. taxpayer?
Would it be on behalf of livestock producers?
And if so, would this action of killing tens of thousands of coyotes on behalf of livestock producers be considered an indirect subsidy to them?
–
Mack P. Bray
Wildlife Watchers
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
April 28, 2008 at 11:21 am
But coyotes don’t kill elk as a general rule. Which is probably a large part of the reason wolves have come under attack. They have been betrayed as mindless mauraders, raiding the world and exterminated all ungulates. CRAP!
The reality is, coyotes probaly eat as many pets and barn animals as wolves do, they are just smaller animals-and no onepays to hunt the,.
Now if we had a season on domestic sheep, or chickens… or poodles…watch out coyotes!
April 28, 2008 at 11:22 am
Jon Way,
Over-shooting coyotes can be counter-productive anyway… because the more you kill, the faster they breed and the larger litters they have. (I’m not against coyote hunting either, but as you point out, it’s a free-for-all war against them in most places.)
But as Ralph just said, a simple “cause and effect” approach to just about everything — bereft of any knowledge or acknowledgement of the more subtle complexities of nature — seems to rule the culture in many places.
Therefore, the simple cause-and-effect reasoning is, “the more coyotes we shoot, the fewer sheep, calves, fawns and elk calves will be killed by coyotes.”
Now, that same reasoning is being applied to wolves, and it’s an uphill battle fighting such deeply-ingrained ignorance.
April 28, 2008 at 11:28 am
Hal,
Too true!
April 28, 2008 at 11:38 am
Thanks Mack and Hal,
those were my points exactly and I simply wish more Environmental Groups (like Sinupu) would go to bat for common animals like coyotes as well.
Yes, Mack, that would be the ultimate form of welfare to ranchers… Another reason why I avoid eating beef.
April 28, 2008 at 11:41 am
The suit has been filed.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/364447.html
April 28, 2008 at 11:44 am
Does anybody know how quickly a judge typically rules on the injunction part of this?
April 28, 2008 at 11:51 am
We are , as Ralph pointed out, in combat with a culture.
In order to defend our position, we need to adopt the enemies argument, and use it against them.
They preach high atop their soap baxes that this is their ‘way of life’, it is a ‘family tradition’.
We, on the other hand, get labels like ‘greenies, tree huggers, bunny lovers, granola bars….’and the list goes on.
We idividually refer to ourselves as conservationists, wolf-supporters, environmentalists, naturalists, but none of them sticks. Why? Because the titles we use are dignified.
Anyone who has ever been victimized by an abuser knows that their first and biggest mode of attack is to remove your dignity. When they objectify you, you lose yourself, and become easier to defeat.
If collectively, we refer to ourselves as a “community”, it shows unification. A community is much harder to demean, belittle, insult, and defeat, because they have an obligation to defend one another.
Community is what we battle here-the ideas of a population that are, right or wrong, defended out of obligation.
The trouble we are having is that we fight too many of them on an individual level. We need to unite, as a community, and in doing so, provide ourselves the same “I have your back” mentality as we see the opposition using against what is right and what is rational.
We need the sense of community, because it truly takes a village to raise a child.
Great perspective Ralph.
April 28, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Hal I too have read the yuck yuck vindictive posts on the internet, not just about wolves but bears, coyotes and cougars. Where does this come from? What social ills makes a person so hateful and violent. All of it seems unfounded in facts, so it must be purely emotional. It also seems infective so that one person who has it can pass it on to buddies. I don’t want to know any of these guys so if anyone else does, can you explain how they got that way? Jon, by the way, I throughly enjoyed your book and if anyone else here hasn’t read it, it is quite worthwhile. “Suburban Howls” It’s on Amazon.
April 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Hal - You wrote: “Me personally, I’ve stated before that I have no problem with wolves being shot after an honest, fair-chase hunt or otherwise when it’s really needed.”
Am wondering if you could provide what you would see as “fair chase” or “when it’s really needed”?
I am familiar with the Idaho hunting plan and there are no rules for “fair chase”.
Already, a wolf was run down and shot by a man on a snowmobile near Ashton Idaho. No charges were filed. If and when a wolf hunting season starts, wolves will be baited in by “sportsmen” who will be leaving entrails and other parts of dead deer or elk. Wolves will also be “howled in”.
State Mgt plans no longer require a ranchers to be proactive in protecting livestock. Wolves can be shot for “worrying” a pet peacock.
Vicki - you wrote: “The reality is, coyotes probaly [sic] eat as many pets and barn animals as wolves do, they are just smaller animals-and no onepays to hunt the,. [sic]
[maybe the sentence is supposed to say "... to hunt them" (?)]
Am wondering, Vicki, where is the data that says wolves eat “pets”? Esp. more pets and barn animals then coyotes?
I’m having trouble being part of a “community” that says hunting and killing wolves is ok, and that wolves kill more pets than coyotes.
April 28, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Hal - You wrote “I’m not against shooting coyotes…”
So does that mean you are for shooting coyotes?
Maybe you could try reading “God’s Dog”?
Senseless shooting of coyotes is no different than senseless shooting of wolves or any “predator”. At least in my book.
April 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Lynn,
Hold on, I am notorious for typos.
I don’t think that wolves actually eat pets…I was using the argument that coyotes eat(or kill I should have said) more domestic animals than wolves do. But either way, I did say the coyotes do more damage, I NEVER said wolves kill more, I said they get the rep that they do without any real justification. I was pointing out that they get the harsher judgement in all likelihood because they kill primarily elk. I also was saying that I think that they wouldn’t be nearly as sought after if elk were not such a profitable commodity.
The community I was talking about is actually pro-wolf/pro environment…but many people who are pro-wolf will also be pro-hunters. If you try to seperate the two, you will lose a huge amount of supporters.
I am like Hal, and I believe that EVENTUALLY, wolves will need to be hunted.
I also know that one of the biggest arguements that anti-wolfers make is that “greenies will never stand for wolves to be hunted, so lets keep their numbers as low as we legally can.” That mentality and argument is a huge part of the problem, and I mean no offense, but I firmly believe that there will have to be a plan, that includes hunting, if the issue will ever be solved.
I won’t debate the inevitable, wolves will be hunted. Will I hunt them? No. But am I an avid anti-hunter? Absolutely not. I am in the middle, neither extreme PETA, nor red-neck ill ‘em all. I believe that the majority of hunters will hunt responsibley, and with reverence for wolves. Those hunters and anglers provide the majority of revenue that supplies land and conservation efforts for all the species they hunt. Like it or not, that includes wolves. I am not, in any way, an all or nothing type of person. Those people tend to lead very dissatisfied existences, as there is never any issue that will end with all or nothing, in my opinion. I also don’t think that making people feel it is one or the other is wise, otherwise we could give people a black or white choice, and there is no black or white choice to be made here. I doubt there ever was, or ever will be.
But please, re-read my post, I never said wolves kill more pets…I said coyotes eat as many pets (should have said kill) and “barn animals”-a reference to cows and sheep…which sadly wolves do rarely eat. I was pointing out that coyotes are not getting the bad reputation that wolves do, because wolves primarily eat elk -which are a huge source of revenue in states like Wyoming. I also said (in another post) that if people paid to hunt cows or sheep, coyotes would be in a world of trouble.
I am sorry if you would not feel a part of the community I was referring to, because I feel you are a very valuable source of information and could educate people as to the facts of wolf behavior. But I can not misrepresent myself….I am not opposed to a trophy hunt of wolves if, and when, their numbers and viability warrant one.
April 28, 2008 at 12:53 pm
This just in…. yay! ~ Vicky
MONDAY
4/28/08
Earthjustice files its legal challenge to the wolf killing
Just moments ago, Earthjustice attorneys filed our case to stop the wolf slaughter in the northern Rockies.
And we aim to win!
Earthjustice has been called upon by a coalition of environmental and animal rights groups — including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Humane Society — to use our legal expertise to stop the killing now and compel the federal government to reinstate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves until true recovery is achieved.
As soon as the federal government officially delisted the northern Rockies gray wolf from Endangered Species protections, we filed a mandatory notice of intent to challenge the decision. Our notice went unanswered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Now it’s time for our day in court.
The USFWS failed to take into account basic principles of conservation biology, disregarded its own policies, and departed from past practice in delisting the wolf.
As we go to court today, Earthjustice will argue that the Service:
--used an outdated and biologically inadequate standard for determining the number of wolves that must be protected in order to maintain a genetically viable population;
--ignored the agency’s own requirement that wolves in the northern Rockies’ core recovery populations must be connected and interbreed before they can be deemed recovered; and
--failed to take into account that state laws that currently govern the fate of the wolves in the absence of federal protections allow unregulated wolf killing.
At this moment, at least 20 wolves have already been killed in the northern Rockies and around Yellowstone National Park.
Earthjustice is using all the legal tools at our disposal to stop this tragedy as quickly as possible. Now that the Service has issued its final decision, the courts are the best way to stop the slaughter and get adequate protections reinstated for the wolves.
Learn more about what we’re doing
http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/wolf-delisting.html
to save these magnificent, iconic animals.
April 28, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Lynne….”God’s Dog”, a great book. I remember reading it years ago and wondering why anyone would want to kill something that they could learn so much from.
Senseless killing?…will never understand what makes someone do it.
April 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Lynn,
Pretty much what Vicki already said. We can’t expect wolves to just be left alone. At some point, “managment” will have to come into play… and that will involve some sport hunting. Wolves are very intelligent, so I think they’ll quickly become very difficult to hunt.
As for coyotes, I have no problem with guys who are willing to go (hike, snowshoe or ski) way out and try to either still-hunt or call them in. Coyotes are smart enough, there’s never going to be a significant slaughter of them that way.
I don’t think I’d qualify any form of “hunting” from a snowmobile as fair chase.
April 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm
HAL - wolves are not “just … left alone” now. They are already baited, trapped and radio collared, or baited and howled in to be shot, or found by Wildlife Service plane and killed on ridges in winter. Very few packs are left alone and that’s only in very remote areas. It’s Idaho Fish & Game’s intent to collar EVERY pack in the state including those in our 4 million acres of Wilderness (the Frank Church River of No Return and Selway Bitterroot Wilderness areas make up most of that).
A well known pack, Buffalo Ridge, was eliminated near here in February. Earlier this month I found a black wolf shot along the highway. Two days ago I saw a wolf hobbling up a hill near Stanley, a member of the Galena Pack, and believe he was one Wildlife Service crippled and never recovered in a “control” last October. So, I’d say we are hardly “leaving wolves alone” now. Wolves may be smart, but outfitters and any one who spends enough time out doors will learn how to find, bait, and kill wolves.
As for coyotes, most are shot from or near roads. No one has to go “way out” to kill a coyote.
April 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Is this in front of a taxidermy business?
Stuffed wolves - Wow!
I wonder if they stuff their family members
when they die.
April 28, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Yes, these are very disturbing photos. I telephoned the taxidermy business and was told that the largest wolf in the photo weighed in at 107 lbs. I’ll bet they were not much more than pups.
April 28, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I know my “family” comment above was very mean-spirited and I am sorry to the universe for that. Wolf would never approve of such a negative attitude. Love and Light to all.
April 28, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Lynne,
Regarless, sport hunting is going to be part of the wolf management plan.
Wyoming’s “free-for-all” zone is a bad idea. That’s where energy should be focused.
I’ve only tagged along on one or two coyote hunts, and they were pretty far back out. Yes, I’m sure plenty of people hunt them close to town too.
April 28, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Linda Hunter,
The “hatred” of wolves, bears or anything else that eats other things for a living probably comes from a time when they really were “competition” in these parts.
A settler family just barely hanging on… losing two of their three cows to wolves in the middle of a brutal 19th century winter would have been a pretty big deal.
The problem is, too many minds in the West are stuck in that place and time.. and still see wolves, bears and cats in those terms.
April 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Great point, Hal 9000 ~ 19th settlers weren’t subsidized by the American taxpayer, were they… but think of the land given away…
20th and 21st century livestock producers are heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer, and for what? To “save” a lifestyle? The beef from cattle grazed on AMERICA’S public lands is only some 3% of America’s total beef consumption. If we ate just 3% less beef, we wouldn’t need beef produced from cattle grazed on our public lands.
–
Mack P. Bray
Wildlife Watchers
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
April 28, 2008 at 3:13 pm
robert,
i don’t know about others’ filings ~ but i was able to get ahold of some of the main filings & wwp’s contribution are posted here.
April 28, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Wolves are the reason I have quit eating beef. (2 yrs now) Call it silly, but I am dead serious about this issue… supporting the killing wolves by purchasing hamburger or steak at my local Safeway or Albertsons is not what I will contribute to.
April 28, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Good for you, Heather and everyone else that’s either cut back or entirely stopped eating beef.
Originally from Texas, I do miss my BBQ, though…!
If anyone in the Jackson, WY area wants to split one of Bob Jackson’s 1/4 buffalos, let me know.
April 28, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Mack,
I would be up for that.
April 28, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Heather, I’m only on month ONE no beef! Between the buffalo and the wolves it was my time - thanks for the inspiration.
April 28, 2008 at 3:44 pm
…and just think what it wuold be like if people were managed like wildlife….
Personally, I think humans should be regulated and managed instead. We are the problem, folks. Not the other way around.
April 28, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Mack
I never did eat much beef to begin with. I was raised on deer and elk, so beef always tasted like a big ball of grease to me. Now, Bison on the other hand… wow, that’s some good stuff.
I have thrown this out before, and wonder what your take is on it. As much as we like to poke at ranchers here, Mack, as I see it, they are often the only thing standing between us and subdivisions. I’ll take an intact ranch over the 10 subdivisions that could replace it any day.
April 28, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Sal, I don’t agree with the way humans treat wildlife in many instances. But at the end of the day, I’m a Humanist and very much pro-civilization.
Deep cynicism and misanthropy have just never appealed to me.
I don’t think it has to be an “either-or” situation anyway… I think we can have both civilization and a greater respect for the wild.
April 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Jeff E, email me and we’ll set it up. Nice…! I’ve never slow smoked any buffalo, though… But I’ll learn.
HAL 9000, check George Wuerthner’s great essay, “Cows or Condos? Neither!” ~ http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/cows_or_condos_neither/C38/L38/
–
Mack P. Bray
Wildlife Watchers
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
April 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Hal,
I always thought the subdivision argument was kinda suspect. Sure there are areas where there will be urban sprawl and others where “trophy” homes will be built, but two things occur too me.
1. that’s happening anyway but mostly in areas that have an expanding job market, and
2. For Subdivisions to be built there has to be jobs to be had, and that more than any thing else would seem to be the deciding factor.
April 28, 2008 at 4:01 pm
addendum:
jobs within a reasonable commute.
April 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm
It wasn’t hard Cindy, especially seeing how the livestock industry in general treats “livestock” or cattle or beef or whatever word suits your fancy. I would say I am very much pro-civilization as well, but I dont like suffering of any kind whether animal or human. not necessary. The way most of those cows are bulldozed to their death… I think I’ll pass on eating that.
April 28, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Brian,
Thanks for the link to the Pleadings. I can’t wait to see their Answer. You can bet it will be rife with pictures of supposed wolf killed livestock.
April 28, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I really hope Molloy will be able to see through all of that smokescreen. He seems to on other env. issues sometimes..
April 28, 2008 at 4:33 pm
cows vs. condos : that subdivisions will happen anyway is the main point from my perspective. livestock producers have been unable to, or just haven’t, demonstrate that any amount of welfare effectively deters the sell-off anyway when the price hits the right mark. Jeff E. is on the mark. Before producers’ ultimatum is taken seriously, they should have to demonstrate places where the economic conditions were ripe for development, but where livestock producers, as a matter of general trend, have turned down the sell-off ~ or better yet, there ought be contractual obligations to do so. They can’t and they won’t.
ecologically, there is much debate about the cost-benefit. especially when you consider the private vs. public tradeoffs - which is never done. that is, a 400 acre base property that hinges 4,000 acre permit on public lands. the question becomes - is it wise to justify the less conspicuous destruction of 4,400 acres that happens with livestock grazing on inherently incompatible lands by allowing industry associations to use the threat of selling off the 400 acre base-property as a basis for milking a farcical ultimatum - a promise of which there is absolutely no legally binding terms let alone developed ecological justifications - or is it more wise to approach conservation from an angle with which there is the promise of lasting results and public determination - conserve the 4,000 acre allotment(s) - which are not under threat of development (except w/ fences, water developments, unnecessary roads, etc. from livestock grazing, logging, wells, etc.) as it is public land - and work with local governments to provide for zoning that respects wildlife when it comes to private property etc.
April 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm
p.s. - and the ironic thing is the cows vs. condo ultimatum is taken seriously all while they wage their war on wildlife throughout the west.
that’s ‘open space’ conservationism
April 28, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Mack,
That was a great essay. Thanks for the link.
April 28, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Brian
Thanks for the links to the lawsuit documents on the WWP site. I received the first two documents from Doug Honnold today, but I do hope that we can establish a single location so that we can follow what’s going on. Especially important are filings from the feds and interveners.
Aside from the historical interest of this lawsuit, I think it is also important that people can follow the legal process from start to finish. You cannot believe the things you learn from going through a case file. You learn especially who has a case and who doesn’t, and it’s interesting to see what lawyers who don’t have a case do to try to make their case.
RH
April 28, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Brian,
I would love to view exhibits 18, 19 and 20. I did not see them included with the Pleadings. Is there a copy of them floating around somewhere. I assume the consist of photos and newspaper articles??
April 28, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Vicki - You wrote “I am like Hal, and I believe that EVENTUALLY, wolves will need to be hunted.” NEED TO BE HUNTED? If this is the case, why should Earthjustice bother filing a lawsuit to help wolves? Why isn’t Minnesota with 3000 wolves proposing a wolf hunt this fall like the N Rockies?
State agencies and the anti-wolfers would especially like your statement that says: “But I can not misrepresent myself….I am not opposed to a trophy hunt of wolves … ”
Then you wrote: “I won’t debate the inevitable, wolves will be hunted… I believe that the majority of hunters will hunt responsibley, [sic] and with reverence for wolves. Those hunters and anglers provide the majority of revenue that supplies land and conservation efforts for all the species they hunt. Like it or not, that includes wolves.”
If you truly think that most hunters are going to kill wolves “responsibley [sic] and with “reverence” … then please read some anti-wolf websites, or the latest news about wolves being killed in Idaho and Wyoming by private citizens who are gloating and distributing photos of their wolf killing experience. For eg., the Ashton man who ran down the wolf with a snowmachine who said “I’d do it again”.
A lot of other people besides hunters, contribute to “land and conservation efforts”. This is a time when wolves need a strong voice speaking up for them, rather than giving in to those who can’t wait to start a collection of wolf heads and pelts.
April 28, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Lynne,
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation right now, is wolves, will be hunted, legally or illegally, my biggest fear is if the de-listing is overturned, there will be far more wolves killed than has currently been, strong voices and legal papers don’t stop those hell bent on getting ride of them…and many will get away with it, lots of land, lots of time an quite a few running around that won’t talk..if the de-listing is overturned, I expect, they may end up back on the list….because numbers will suffer far greater than they are now..
April 28, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Why can’t people just grow up and get into the 21st century, their daddies were wrong about wolves, their granddaddies were wrong about wolves and so on. Its all just insufficient excuses, there is no biological or ethical reason for killing predators. At the end of the day there is no justification.
Those who seek to control nature will never understand it.
April 28, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Lynne,
I respect your point of view, but I think your version of what we are saying is skewed.
I also want you to know that neither I, nor Hal have ever said we support wolves being hunted from snow mobiles. So you are throwing in an argument we never said we supported.
Why support wolves being relisted? Well, because they are not numerous enough to sustain themselves, or to continue to help balance the ecosystem at this time.
But I also don’t think they can just be left to their own devices. That is far fetched. They will eventually need to be managed. Why? Because human population isn’t.
There is not enough habitat for wolves, or any other species, to just be left alone. It is sad, but it is a reality.
I feel that wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes, elk, deer, all have value, none more than the other.
I am not “giving in” as you put it. I do see a need for compromise. People with the approach you are taking are simply making the arguments against wolves more viable. You are giving life and basis to the real anti-wolf advocates argument that pro-wolfers wanted them released and intentionally misled everyone when they said they were aiming for a certain population. (I don’t consider myself or Hal to be in that category, regardless of what you may mis-believe). The all or nothing approach is just helping them to support the argument that once any wolf advocate is given an inch, they take a mile. You lose so much credibility and support in doing that.
I actually feel your comment was quite offensive. Just because we don’t agree with your all or nothing approach, don’t assume you have the right to tell us what we actually support or believe in. I have absolutely always said I believe when wolves became viable without our constant interference, and when a concensus of biologists agree that they are not in danger of extinction in the lower 48, they should be hunted in a controlled situation, with a limited number of tags determined by those biologists.
I have always stated I favor a controlled approach to hunting, not just letting any idiot with ammo run free shooting at what ever moves. I have never been in favor of them being listed as vermin.
Being an extremist will only get you extreme reactions. Not every environmentalist is living naked in trees, and not every hunter is a crazed and heartless murderer. Until we stop acting like that is a factual analysis of the world, and acknowledge that no one will ever agree entirely, you can count on the legal yo-yo always pulling wolves out of the scientific control they should be under, and right into
the political frying pan they are in now.
A lot of people besides hunters and anglers do contribute… but not nearly as much. Frankly, you’ll sooner part the red sea than out law hunting. But this law suit isn’t about hunting being immoral or wrong, it is about how, and when wolves should be controlled, and by whom.
You may have a personal attatchment to wolves. I do not. I personally think they are a vital part of a balanced ecosystem. I believe they have value, and at present, need protection. My personal attatchment is to the environment as a whole.
And, I am sorry to offend you, it was never my intention. But I believe anyone who gives an all or nothing ultimatum is more likely to cause harm to that balance than good.
I am not negating the need for wolves. But I am also not going to fall in line with those who think hunters should not be around. They play a key role in the environment too.
See, when I read blogs and see that anti-wolf folks are saying really dramatized things like, “if wolves are allowed to be here, they’ll eat all the elk, and they will kill my dog”, I look at their statement and immediately discredit it or dismiss it as emotional ranting. It is blown to an unsupportable extreme. I think saying that I am “giving in to those who can’t wait to start a collection of wolf heads and pelts” is just as overly dramatic.
I am quite aware that hunting wolves is a very emotional subject. But it is no more emotional to me than what is occuring with bison. I can be lead by my sensibilities, and by my conscience, but not by emotion that I base on what I feel would be a perfect world. The world is far from perfect. We are left to do the best with what we have.
Why do you feel that anyone who would do what you wouldn’t is awful? Not every hunter is some crazy freak. They feel just as strongly about the environment as you do, they want to preserve it so they can enjoy it too. And you are no more entitled, and no less, to enjoy it as they are.
I just believe if you really want people to take your view point seriously, you should try to see theirs too. It is, in my humble opinion, hypocritical to demand to be heard and then refuse to listen. So I try to listen, and then I choose what to take from what I have heard.
So I can now say that I agree that wolves are needed, and I agree they should not be hunted at this time.
I hear that you want them to be protected, and I agree that right now, they should be.
But I disagree with you that I am giving in on anything, because my stance has not changed
I also disagree that all hunting is sick. But I am quite sure that we will always have to agree to disagree about that.
I still hold your opinion as valuable. I will always listen to what you say, and try to learn from you. Even if I don’t see every thing the exact same way you do, I still think you have so much to contribute. So I thank you for your input.
April 29, 2008 at 12:33 am
Viki
England banned fox hunting, the Netherlands banned wolf hunting.
April 29, 2008 at 12:34 am
pardon the typo: Vicki.
April 29, 2008 at 3:45 am
Vicki wrote: “There is not enough habitat for wolves, or any other species, to just be left alone. It is sad, but it is a reality.”
If there is enough room for prey then there is enough room for predator, cull the predator and you will have an explosion of herbivores.
Wolves will not breed when their food supply is substantially diminished and will spread out naturally in search of new territory if necessary. No matter which way you slice it, or what side you look on - there is no biological or ethical justification for leisure hunting of wolves.
April 29, 2008 at 7:02 am
John,
I disagree. I would not personally shoot a wolf. But there is a large monetary contribution made by hunters, for the support of habitat used by wolves. They (hunters) contribute funds for research, and for conservation for habitat that has an ultimate benefit for wolves.
I truly think that if hunters stopped contributing toward conservation, and you require heftier tax contributions, the reaction of more people will turn anti-wolf. Right now, we can not afford any more opinions to turn anti-wolf.
Americans are hard to part from their money when it comes to taxes. I may be wrong, (though I have it on good authority it would be a typical reaction in the present economy) but most people would rather have laws that are bad for wolves and the environment here, than pay more taxes in an economy that is already bleeding their bank accounts dry.
I do agree, for the most part, that wolves will disperse and reproduce in equallibrium with their prey base and territory size. However, in the USA, elk hunting is a huge financial entity, and a huge American past time. Hunters are a large group of voters. Even if you disagree with hunting, you’d be foolish to think you will stop it in the USA.
Let me ask, out of a genuine curiousity, weren’t the hunts you were speaking of largely a past time in more recent years, or aristocracy? (Thay may just be a stereo-typical portrayal, so I ask to find out the truthful population that did it. I am not trying to be obnoxious.)
The reason I wonder is, in the USA, hunting is big business. It is in fact, a main stay in many states. So, like it or not, hunters will be the winner in this arena.
I don’t personally think that all hunting is wrong. And it could be argued that wildlife could easily get lost in the urban sprawl. But, humans have evolved as part of the food chain, right along side wolves, bears, elk and plants. SO they are a part of the equation.
The only way to effectively remove people from the equation is to remove people, period. Are you willing to do that? Most people are not. And, frankly, no one should ever be comfortable putting any animal’s welfare above human rights.
American’s take their rights seriously. And, animal welfare has to be carefully balanced in a way that does not infringe on the rights of many, or allienate those who’s votes you need.
If you piss off hunters, it won’t be long before they are changing legislation, and wolves will suffer in the wake of that.
You can not force feed an entire population your idea of ethical. That is a can of worms you don’t want to open. This is already a bad situation, and a messy one too. That would be so counter productive, and harmful to wolves in the long run.
To try to plan an entire species existance is simply impossible. To plan for their existance at all, you have to include all parts of the equation. Humans are a part of the equation with the environment and with wolves.
You may not agree with the ethics of hunting wolves, or hunting in general. But what is ethical, and what is legal are two very different things. Ethics are a completely subjective thing, if they weren’t, there would be fewer civil wars, no human rights violations, the world would be a eutopia, if we all agreed on what was ethical. But we don’t, and never will.
Agree or disagree with hunting, but either way, it is time to start choosing our battles and our allies more wisely.
April 29, 2008 at 7:35 am
Vicki,
While I do agree that ethical hunting does have it’s place in western society, I wholeheartedly dissagree that wolf hunting will contribute to maintenence of wildlife habitat. Wolves simply do not and will not exist in numbers high enough to require more than a token culling of the packs. They are not herd animals and their populations are not sustainable in the same manner. We can already see that the tag price is ridiculously low in areas where wolves are to be hunted now. And, I am willing to bet that hunting orgs. are not going to contribute anything to the maintence of wolf habitat, reasoning that the presense of wolves detracts from their ability to profit from the hunting of other wildlife. There simply is no ethical reason to hunt wolves. As mentioned an occasional culling may be necessary but I hardly think that numbers taken will ever make a significant contribution to the cost of maintaining habitat, especially considering the proposed price of tags.
April 29, 2008 at 7:42 am
Folks should take note of this.
About groups-
We put particular instances into groups such chairs, popsicle, trucks, friends, enemies, hunters, wolf enthusiasts. We do this so we can mentally handle numerous instances based on their differences and similarity to each other.
You can usually raise a controversy by asking whether a particular instance fits into a group or not, e.g., is a chocolate coated fruit bar really a popsicle?
What kinds of people fit in the group called hunters? Is Hillary Clinton really a hunter? Is a poacher a hunter?
Most importantly to what degree are those in the group of hunters politically organized, and to what extent does this group overlap with wolf enthusiasts?
So Vicki you should say “if you piss off [politically organized] hunters, it won’t be long before they are changing legislation.” This is a minor, but important correction.
I think the wrong portion of the group we call hunters is the better organized.
One of my goals on this blog is help the portion of hunters that have a more general enthusiasm for the natural outdoors come together in various ways, including the political, with those who have an enthusiasm for the natural outdoors but don’t hunt.
Therefore, I don’t like generic hunting versus anti-hunting debates.
Folks, please keep this in mind. Perhaps I should move this up to a post.
April 29, 2008 at 8:14 am
Ralph,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you about hunting debates.
I would fall into the group of the more enthusiastic. Again, I wouldn’t hunt wolves, I don’t hunt anything I won’t eat. I don’t even keep fish, because I don’t eat them. (Excepting lake trout in Yellowstone Lake.)
Cat,
The funds from hunters may not be ear marked “Wolves”, but it is spent on conserving the habitat they are in. Therefore they are supported by hunters.
That being said, I completely agree that the tags for wolves are too low. They should be, in my opinion, in the same range as moose, and big horn tags. I also think that any hunt for wolves should be held in the same way those hunts are held here in Colorado, once in a life time type lottery draw, or once every decade. With preference points being given to hunters who have put in and not been drawn in other draws.
I already stated that before in another string.
Under those circumstances, a hunt will be more valuable, and therefore more lucrative for conservation of wolves. I also think it will be easier to maintain numbers of wolves that way…with more control over which packs are thinned out.
I know wolves are not herd animals, I also know that they will need very species based control. Again, I am opposed to them being called vermin. But to say there will never be a ned to hunt wolves, just cull them, is a contradiction.
How do you cull them? The same way you cull elk. They are shot. Now, you could sell tags, like I said above, and profit the organization that will eventually be entrusted to maintain welfare of wolves. Or you could just have officers shoot them, or you could opt for what they have voted to do in RMNP and have sharp shooters come in a kill them. No matter what you call it, it is still shooting wolves. It will still be necessary.
I am in agreement with Ralph, we need to better unite with the hunters who are outdoor enthusiats and environmentally friendly.
Again, good point Ralph. I overlooked the “politically organized” distinction because I felt that I was addressing them from my point of view, and I group myself with those who are organized. I should have clarified. I am usually better about that. I try not to over generalize, even when it comes to ranchers and energy companies.
To everyone else, I apologize for not making that distinction.
April 29, 2008 at 8:15 am
John,
Fox hunting is definitely NOT banned in England nor in the US.
April 29, 2008 at 8:48 am
Cat,
Well it seems the issue of Fox hunting in England is a bit of a sticky wicket, there was a ban placed into law, but it still allows foxes to be shot or taken with birds of prey…you cannot pack hunt foxes any longer, but you can use two hounds to “Flush” a fox and then shoot it, or let loose a bird of prey on it…
You might take a look at…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4726566.stm
April 29, 2008 at 9:03 am
Ralph said: “One of my goals on this blog is help the portion of hunters that have a more general enthusiasm for the natural outdoors come together in various ways, including the political, with those who have an enthusiasm for the natural outdoors but don’t hunt.”
I could not agree more. An ongoing frustration with me is a deeply-ingrained ignorance of, or even disdain for, bigger-picture ecology within the general hunting community. “Environmentalist” is a dirty word among many hunters. I think that’s not only wrong, it’s bordering on flat-out self-defeating.
What I’m finding is that because they spend a fair amount of time outdoors and are very knowledgeable about the habits of a few particular species, some hunters think they know everything they need to know. They seem unwilling or unable to step back and realize there might be a larger picture. Knowing everything there is to know about when, where and how to find a gigantic and wiley old mule deer buck does NOT add up to a comprehensive knowledge of how the environment works, and what’s best for it as a whole.
The vindictive hatred toward wolves is only a symptom of a deeper problem within the hunting community. I’m developing a growing interest in at least trying to educate more hunters on big-picture ecology issues. “Find your inner tree-hugger” is a motto more hunters need to explore and live by, IMO.
April 29, 2008 at 11:34 am
Emotionally I side with Lynne, rationally I understand Ralph’s goal and agree with Hal about a deeper problem within the hunting community. In Lynne’s defense, when you are out in the woods observing hunters, animal control and their handiwork it is all inexcuseable. I believe I said in one post that I thought the hunting community needs a new icon in the media. They need a person they respect to show them the way to their honorable path again. Cabela’s isn’t doing that and unfortunately marketing may account for some of the vindictive hatred. Hal you describe the problem really well. I think we should all try to explore an answer. I have learned on this blog that generalizing about hunting doesn’t cut it. I am glad that Hal has an interest in trying to educate more hunters on the big picture ecology issues. . I believe that if we are to step out of political mess of western wildlife practices that is an absolutely key thing. How you would do that is an interesting question of which I don’t have an answer. Feeling like I do about the things I have seen I can’t be a direct part of it.
April 29, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Cat,
Actually fox hunting is banned in the UK, but there seems to be quite a few loopholes that the locals can run through.
April 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hal and Linda,
I agree too. Wolves and the hatred of them is based on a lot of ingnorance, a lt of misunderstanding, and a lot of irrational fear.
There are honorable hunters, as Linda states, and I would add that the good guys who aren’t crazed idiots need to polish the rarnish that has been done to their reputation.
I would hope that Ralph is successful in unifying those hunters who would be proactive in th environment and consrvation, and those goo dpeople here who would seek the same ultimate goal, a better understanding or nature and a way to help save it.
I could not do what Lynne does, I could not go out and watch a pack, and study a pack, and then see it’s demise. I wouldn’t have the emotional strength to do it. That is why I try very hard to remain unemotional about wolves. Believe me, it is a daily struggle.
WHen I watch them, my heart tells me to love them, and nutrture them. My head knows that will end in heart break. So it is quite the battle of inner voices.
April 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Colorado has a mandatory hunter education course that has to be completed in order to obtain a hunting license. Perhaps there should be some sort of national requirement that states receiving federal funds for forest management should require an environmental awareness, or eco-civics class.
I’d go.
April 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Save Bears,
The killing of foxes when pursued by hounds is banned in the UK, not fox hunting as a sport. The entirity of the Brittish Monarchy would colapse and have no reason to get up in the morning if the sport of fox hunting was banned. It’s quite big business with scopy field hunters going for as much as $100,000 (in US). This was once my business. Trust me, the sport of fox hunting is NOT banned in the UK.
April 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm
This is a bit confusing I admit, But the ban on killing foxes and hares in a chase with hounds has not impacted the sport of fox hunting. I trained and rode with Whixkey Road Hounds in Aiken South Carolina for several years and rode once with Roaring Fork Hounds in Aspen. There was never a fox (or anything save a flask of brandy) killed in any chase. In fact I cannot remember a time when the chase was not innitiated by dragging a hide dowsed by a store bought scent. (They don’t call the Roaring Fork Hounds the “highest hunt in the US for nothing). I think they now must prove that they hunt only to a dragged scent.
April 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Ralph said: “Folks, please keep this in mind. Perhaps I should move this up to a post.”
Please do!
April 29, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Vicki - for the record, I grew up on a ranch in a remote area of Oregon and went hunting with my family from the time I could walk. I’ve killed deer for venison and as a youth, shot other wildlife “for fun”. We called it “varmint hunting”. I also raised livestock. I understand hunting, hunters and how they vary with their beliefs and actions, and the politics that is behind states’ actions with regards to wolves.
Every day I meet and talk to a variety of people, some who like wolves, some who don’t, and some who are undecided. That’s part of my job. Sometimes we agree to disagree. I’ve worked on conservation and wildlife issues in Idaho since 1983 and direct a small non-profit group. You can read about us at wildwhiteclouds.org.
Am not sure where you live, or your livelihood or experience in conservation and politics, but, I’m in the midst of wolves that are highly threatened because of delisting. When I wrote a declaration for the Earthjustice lawsuit filed yesterday, it never entered my mind to say that wolves will and should be hunted.
Some posts on this thread (and others) are really long and going over ground that’s been hashed out before. And I don’t think that Aldo Leopold’s “greenfire” quote will ever be outdated. So, I’m going to cut out of this discussion, and go find the local wolves and see what they are up to.
April 29, 2008 at 7:13 pm
sometimes i wonder about this hunting distinction that Ralph notes. i think that the anti-predator ‘hunters’ are more vociferous - and yes, politically organized. i think the less vocal folk who enjoy the outdoors don’t whine and bitch as a consequence of the relative wisdom and humility of the type - it’s a character thing - the perspective… maybe in the perspective it becomes more personal — where-as obnoxious proclamations and expectations of the outdoors - and fear of it - are a characteristic of the ones that don’t have such perspective. maybe i’m off base. i just think of it sorta like hyper right-wing evangelism vs. the more politically quiet/humble progressive spiritual practitioners. i hope that analogy doesn’t spin the thought off.
it’s a problem though - the wrong ideas are being promoted/spread.
April 29, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I think a lot of the problem is that hunting is no longer taught in any consistent fashion that emphasizes good reasons to hunt and methods that are proper and those that are not. Fish and Game departments do try, but they are outweighed by other more pervasive sources.
There never was a golden age, of course, but too many today get their ideas from media run by businesses that are overwhelmingly interested first in selling gear. These sources are also less and less interested in promoting conservation because it doesn’t pay for them, at least in the short run.
While sustainable hunting of carnivores is possible in some places, it is not a big money item like millions and millions of whitetails, muleys, and elk. There never can be as many bears as elk, or cougars as deer.
Too many sources of good information about the environment are at least somewhat negative about hunting in general.
Too many animal rights groups are not much better informed about ecology than those they oppose.
There just isn’t much accurate education for the general public going on right now about wildlife.
April 29, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You guys just don’t get it do you. There was a reason they wiped the damn wolves out back then, and not because they helped anything, thats for damn sure. And coyotes are no better. Someone said that they were only pups, yeah, maybe when a full grown man weighs 8 pounds and is measured in inches. Come out to the real world from your little appartments in NYC. The only reason you want them around is so you can drive to Wy. and see a wolf or a grizzly bear out of your window and say your saving the enviroment. Honestly, do you have a clue what wolves do? You all just like to think that you know them when none of you have probably ever seen one. Wolf hunting = good
April 29, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Ralph,
I remember learning about the local wildlife as part of a civics class in school, about 4th grade.
They used to be big on knowing about the animals associated with each state back then.
At some point we lost touch with teaching kids the basics.
When I began hunting, I had to learn how to do it “properly, or not at all!” My dad was very insistant on that point.
I had to learn how to shoot, when to shoot, the safety of shooting, the nature of the animal I hunted, and how to give back for what I was taking.
The responsibility of teaching “proper” hunting has fallen far from home. I think it is because Americans spend less and less time with their kids, and important lessons fall to the way side.
My dad is an economist, turned teacher, who also has a degree in religeon and philosophy. He talks about our disconnection from our kids, and our world all the time. He tells me a lot that parents accept less and less responsibility for their kid’s behavior. He says they really feel kids should learn everything in school.
I place a lot of faith in programs like the one Bob has mentioned. I would love to see basic environmental science be taught in schools. But when my kids (12-20 yrs old) bring home science books about animal biology or environmental science, they are not what I would expect them to be like at all.
I don’t know if laws mandating public schools teach ecology would be passed. But if you linked the ability to obtain a hunting license to taking a course about basic animal facts or environmental conservation, people who hunt would have to take it.
Wishful thinking perhaps.
Lynne,
thanks for the background info. it is nice to get to know more about you, and where you are coming from.
I actually grew up knowing hunting and fishing to be the tie that bound my family. It is still one of the rare things we all get together to do. I have hunted deer and elk, but only what I’d eat. I’d never be able to hunt wolves, coyotes or bears myself. I couldn’t stomache it.
You are quite right about hunters being a mixed assortment.
I agree that delisting is not at all appropriate for wolves at this time. I support the efforts to regain their protected status.
I tend to have more compassion for the toothy guys than the prey.
I actually manage a health clinic. I am not with wolves every day, but I do deal with a bunch of animals.( Two legged kind-they are quite a nasty breed at times.)
I studied biology in college (and business, 3 years), but stopped going to school to support my kids. I will go back someday. I opted for a health care career for job security and stable hours for my kiddos.
I was a single mother for 14 years. And I often worked two jobs to pay for our annual trip to YNP. But I insisted on going, because the experience was invaluable for my kids.
I honestly believe in fostering children’s love of the environment begins at home.
Happy watching and have a good evening.
April 29, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Wow “Me” Coming from a Montanan that lives in Wolf country, as well as ranch country, I can 110% say, your the one in the dark…the middle is somewhere in between, but you extremists on the anti-wolf side, are going to continue with your extremist views and then they will end up back on the list, then you will have to be a criminal to shoot them…there is a good many on this site, that actually live in the areas that wolves are, and have a pretty good handle on things..
April 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Me said. “There was a reason they wiped the damn wolves out back then, and not because they helped anything, thats for damn sure. And coyotes are no better”
Who was it said. “T’was the sharp toothed wolf honed the fleet footedness of the Antelope?”
April 30, 2008 at 2:10 am
Snowmobiles, Men and Dead Wolves
http://blog.kingsoutdoorworld.com/2008/04/29/wyoming-wolf-hunting-success
Grrrr
April 30, 2008 at 5:55 am
Me said: “Come out to the real world from your little appartments in NYC. ”
I don’t think anyone who regularly posts here lives in New York City? The majority live in the West or have lived their in the past. Perhaps you need to come out from behind your outdated stereotypes and silly folklore?
“Honestly, do you have a clue what wolves do?”
Yes, we all know that wolves kill and eat elk, deer, moose, and sometimes even [gasp] livestock!
That was Me’s first post. He probably never read much of anything on the blog before posting, and so his opinions were uncontaminated by knowledge. Ralph Maughan
April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am
“Me’s” comment is very interesting because it is uncommon to succinctly see so many stereotypes about those who disagree plus thinking about canid carnivores dating from about 1910.
April 30, 2008 at 8:54 am
Its like a mini time capsule from a hundred years ago has been dug up and posted on this blog.
April 30, 2008 at 9:00 am
Reminds me of a funny bumper sticker I saw while living out West. It read:
Welcome to Utah! Set your clock back 50 years.
April 30, 2008 at 9:28 am
ynp4me.
I actually WANT more photos like those and the ones at the top of this thread put up and posted everywhere. Plus, more and more stories by guys bragging about how they “hunted” wolves by running them down on snowmobiles.
Why?
Well, as the old saying goes:
“Give ‘em enough rope…”
April 30, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Me said:
“There was a reason they wiped the damn wolves out bac