Details revealed how Park wolf pack was eliminated in Montana wolf hunt-
The more you think about it, it is amazing how stupid it was for Montana to begin their wolf hunt right next to Yellowstone Park in the very place most of the wolves live.
Kathie Lynch has a lot of detail I was not familiar with. Park wolf watchers may not be pleased that they shot wolf 527F and eliminated a Park pack — the Cottonwood Pack.
– – – – –
Yellowstone National Park’s Cottonwood wolf pack is gone. By Kathie Lynch. Copyright
Yellowstone National Park’s Cottonwood wolf pack is gone. The graying-black seven-year-old alpha female (527F), the jet black four-year-old beta female (716F) and at least two others (adults or pups?) were all recently reported killed outside of the Park boundary in the Montana wolf hunt. For all who study, advocate for and have worked tirelessly to restore grey wolves to their keystone species role in nature, the loss is profound.
The death of wolves like 527F and 716F is a great loss, not only for the Cottonwood pack, but also for science. Researchers have spent countless hours, days, weeks and years recording observations of their behavior, habits and genealogy. The value of such long-term data is immense.
Because they are so highly visible, the Yellowstone wolves have contributed mightily to our understanding of the species. Peering through the window of a spotting scope or binoculars, we have come to better understand the daunting challenges of living life in the wild and the importance of preserving wilderness. Over the years, thousands of park visitors have had a chance to share in the challenges of life in the wild for 527F and 716F.
Here are the stories of these two true champions at heart…
Cottonwood alpha female 527F was born into the Druid Peak pack in 2002, the offspring of legendary alphas 21M and 42F. Independent and full of initiative, she left the Druids as a yearling and joined their archenemy, the Slough Creek pack. With the Sloughs, she endured the distemper epidemic in 2005 and the siege by the Unknown pack in 2006.
In the fall of 2007, 527F moved on yet again and founded the Cottonwood pack. Resourceful and secretive, she made a home for her new pack high on the Hellroaring slopes.
During the summer of 2009, 527F led her pack back to her old territory near Slough Creek. Park visitors gathered eagerly every morning in Little America for the chance to watch 527F’s family of seven adults tend their four pups, one of which even had a white tip on its tail, just like its mother!
Five twenty-seven was a survivor. She stayed out of the way, and she stayed out of trouble…until the day in early October when she stepped outside of the Park boundary and a wolf hunter’s gunshot killed her.
Just a few days earlier, Cottonwood beta female 716F had met the same fate. From the very start, 716F–known for years as simply “The Dark Female”–epitomized the essence of what it means to survive in the wild.
Born to the Slough Creek pack in 2005, 716F was one of only three Slough pups to survive that year’s distemper epidemic. As a yearling in 2006, she heroically helped in the futile struggle to save the pack’s pups during the siege by the Unknowns.
In 2007, she was the only one of the seven Slough females who did not get pregnant. She and the young gray Slough alpha male (a recent immigrant from the Agate Creek pack) stayed “busier than bird dogs” hunting and providing for the six new mothers and their pups. I so vividly remember seeing her sleek black body jetting back and forth between Jasper Bench and Slough Creek, bringing food to the growing family.
The Slough alpha female, 380F, never appreciated 716F’s efforts and persecuted her mercilessly, eventually driving her out of the pack. We lost track of her for a while, so it was a wonderful surprise to rediscover her last February. As we watched the capture (collaring) procedure from Hellroaring overlook, it slowly dawned on us that the sleek black body jetting around below us was indeed “The Dark Female” (soon to become 716F)!
It was great to see that she had a last found a home and had risen to the status of beta female. With her enthusiasm and great spirit, she would have made a worthy alpha, if 527F had preceded her in death–and if she had had the chance.
But, it was not to be. The lives of both of these extraordinary wolves, who had each contributed so much to research and our knowledge of the species, were snuffed out. They had stayed out of trouble; they did not prey on livestock. Their only mistake was in stepping over the Park’s invisible boundary line.
What can we learn from their mistake–a mistake that cost them their lives? Nothing will bring back 527F, 716F, the two other Cottonwoods and the many other wolves who have been shot. The fact that wolves have been so easily hunted and killed during the legal hunt is testimony to the fact that wolves need increased and continuing protection. So that their deaths will not be in vain, we, as wolf advocates, must ask what we can do to further protect the species we have worked so hard to bring back from the brink.
We are at the crossroads. Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains are currently delisted. Wolf hunting is a reality in Montana and Idaho. Wolf advocates need to find new ways to protect and preserve the species. Unless we do, the years of effort and research that went into reestablishing this keystone species will have all been in vain as we continue to watch wolf after wolf die.
October 8, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Kathy – I am writing this through tears. You wrote of 527F: “Resourceful and secretive, she made a home for her new pack high on the Hellroaring slopes.”
I know of similar alpha females, trying to do the same for their packs, against all odds in Idaho. Indeed, mothers are trying to do this for their wolf families everywhere.
And of 716F (the dark one): “It was great to see that she had a last found a home and had risen to the status of beta female. With her enthusiasm and great spirit, she would have made a worthy alpha, if 527F had preceded her in death–and if she had had the chance.”
All over Idaho and Montana, wolves are dying. The count tonight is 32 dead wolves in Idaho, and by Monday, it could be twice that. Anti-wolf blogs are lit up with the battle cry “shoot ’em in the gut. Shoot every wulf ya see.”
Whatever can be done to wake up the rest of America on the tragedy that is happening to wolves in Idaho and Montana must be done.
October 8, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Thank you for the nice summation of their two stories. I feel sick about this.
October 8, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Famed wolf 302M dead?
I got this email from Kim Kaiser tonight.
– – – – –
wolf 302 was found dead today
To: Ralph Maughan
possible other wolves,,
Phone 406 600 4730
October 8, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Just after I submitted my story, I learned that famous Blacktail alpha male 302M was found dead in Yellowstone on Oct. 8, 2009. I want to clarify that he was not shot by wolf hunters, but was possibly killed by other wolves.
October 8, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Crushing news Kathy… Cas had a great life and will be sorely missed…
October 9, 2009 at 5:57 AM
This is a certain setback for the wolf reintroduction, I am glad I did not go to yellowstone this year. Montana will lose tourist dollars this is for sure. These cow and sheep people, graze thier animals on our public lands. The ranchers who have their own land have received money for their killed anomals. They must go with the movement and take steps to protect their animals. I am sure the environmental groups will hepl them achieve their goal in protecting their animals. Now President Obama must get this rancher out of the office for secretary of interior, this hurts me deeply killings these beautiful animals. I have four dogs of my own and love animals, wolves are my deepest love.I can’t believe that this is going on now we must get defenders and earth justice to press the courts to stop this now.
October 9, 2009 at 6:21 AM
Sorry for my spelling writing fast, I wanted to live in Montana after retiring, now I am not so sure, can’t live with people who hate wildlife. To me I know this is wrong to say but these hunters should get a dose of their own medicine. Two years ago I went to Yellowstone and witnessed a decoy wolf in Lamar valley, call in a female only to have the pack come out of the aspens to kill the female. She ran across the valley like a bullet, their were a few wolf project people their men and ,and they were surprise at what they witnessed. I did get picture of this,the pack,her run across the valley, and her in the next turn off. To think these beautiful animals are being hunted now, we are the real animals to let this happen, this is hurting me deeply I have tears too.
October 9, 2009 at 7:53 AM
I am literally sick to my stomach….no words can express my grief at these killings!! Why oh why, can’t there be a buffer zone around the Park where these killings are not permitted?
October 9, 2009 at 8:47 AM
My wife and I visit Yellowstone every year to hopefully
have a extended view of these unique animals.Hunting them is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
October 9, 2009 at 9:04 AM
My deepest sympathies to those of you that have come to know some of these animals. This must be a very difficult time for you. Life can be very cruel and not make sense. I think it was a great thing that was done for the wolves in Yellowstone and Idaho. I have great admiration for any who worked on or even supported the wolf reintroductions.
I don’t know what I can say to make the situation better…I mean about right and wrong. I did not get to know any of the wolves and am distant from the killing. The wolves are probably here to stay, however, and that gives me great optimsm about the future of our world. There will always be new pups in the spring and wild frolicing wolf play to be observed thanks to the hard work of wolf supporters.
The hunts are too bad. It is a tough thing. I am deeply sorry for those of you affected by this.
October 9, 2009 at 9:15 AM
“Why oh why, can’t there be a buffer zone around the Park where these killings are not permitted?”
Waxing philosophical this morning…
One thing we must always remember- *every* wolf that is shot in these hunts is as much of a unique individual as 527F, Jewel, The Dark One, Limpy or the other named wolves that have died and will die at hunters’ hands.
A buffer zone around the park buffers *our* sorrow at learning of the demise of wolves we have heard about and come to know as individuals. But it doesn’t mitigate this central issue.
It is indeed difficult to think this way, as it compounds the impact of the tragedy.
October 9, 2009 at 9:31 AM
The same thing happens to me with the individual coywolves I study on Cape Cod, MA. I collar them, get to know them as individuals, watch them raise their young and be diligent parents, then watch some redneck shoot them 1/2 the time b.c they are a coywolf (they still say coyote). The state of MA, just like in MT, doesn’t give a rats ass. In fact, they have repeatedly ignored my scientific published research documenting that they are social, sentient intelligent beings.
Time for the National Canid Protection Act:
October 9, 2009 at 9:34 AM
to think that two females that survived a distemper outbreak and could have passed on some antibodies (sic?) to succeeding generations.
Yes, I must say Montana is committed to healthy viable wolf populations.
October 9, 2009 at 9:56 AM
So are folks motivated to do something to free wildlife agencies from having to dance to the financial music of the bombastic few by finding another way to finance state wildlife agencies? I had a recent conversation with an Idaho wildlife manager and an Idaho Wildife Commissioner about the then-pending wolf hunt. Neither were very happy about it but both were bowing to what they felt was overwhelming pressure from “the people who pay our bills.” They knew they were going to get sued but both said “you can’t trust the animal-rights crowd – they’ll just sue you anyway. We have to go with the people who pay us.”
I spent a lot of years in wildlife management and season setting meetings and the people I saw there were the hook and bullet crowd. Once in while some well-meaning and committed activist would stand up and make a statement but it was pretty rare and rarely consistent. Worse, after they were done, the legislators or the wildlife commissioners would comment that the paying customers in the room were the hunters and fishermen. Since most state wildlife agencies are primarily funded from license revenues, those regulators feel they have to listen to the folks who pay the tab. And they’ll feel that way until it changes.
Hunting isn’t the problem. Africa is proving that. Accountability among wildlife managers is. Until you control that – directly, through their funding, – you have no handle and little credibility with managers or political overseers. Policy without funding is just conversation.
And sending a check to national animal organizations is not paying the wildlife managementtab – that’s just contributing to the Environmental Lawyer’s Full Employment Trust Fund. Who really wins when lawsuit after lawsuit ties eveything (and everybody) up in court for decades (been there, got a whole drawer ful of those t-shirts) and drains agency funds that could have been better used? Is that good for wildlife? Right now it’s a well-funded and good-paying cotage industry.
Change the laws that control the money and you might get somewhere. That what the hunters did with Pittman-Robertson. Look where it got them.
Don’t get mad – get seriously active. Or, better yet, get both!
October 9, 2009 at 9:56 AM
The delisting lawsuit can’t be resolved soon enough given this kind of damage being done to the wolves and their future.
The buffer zone means retiring grazing leases and paying FMV for them. It is way past time. I notice Obama got the Nobel peace award today, quite an accomplishment so soon into a presidency. Now, if he could only bring that same focus to the Western resource issues…
Not sure which state is number one on the evil intent list these days..I thought Idaho was the clear favorite, but Montana is trying hard to get out of the Avis position.
October 9, 2009 at 9:57 AM
As Yellowstone NP & adjacent national forests & refuges are one of the world’s largest unfragmented parcels of land left in the temperate part of the world (and a world heritage site), it would not be unreasonable to have a more rational policy for protecting wildlife from “thrill killing”. Yellowstone is famous for life not death
October 9, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Does it seem plausible that hunters may have flocked to this border area to intentionally kill park wolves? It would be pretty symbolic for the anti-wolf folks to kill wolves that reside inside the park.
October 9, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Mgulo speaks wisely.
In politics, the interests that are organized into groups where people show up at the right place and time is just about everything. It is more important than numbers. I’d say that groups on the wrong side of public opinion win in the state legislatures and Congress anyway at least half the time.
Some interests are inherently easy to organize; others difficult. The hard ones to organize are those that represent broad rather than selfish interests, where the people don’t have easy communication with each other, and where there is a strong incentive to be a free rider, a.k.a. freeloaders — to let someone else do it because they don’t think their contribution will make a difference.
The Internet could level the playing field a bit because it is not as hard as formerly to get people in contact with each other who would not otherwise be able to find each other.
October 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I’m working on a post for my blog on the very issue mgulo mentions- how the current wildlife funding process must be changed to give all stakeholders the representation that they deserve. I have been doing some research into this issue, and one of the huge road blocks is that, in many states, the “hook and bullet crowd” *like* things the way that they are. In state after state, I read accounts of how hunters feared changes in the funding of their state wildlife departments- because they would not then have a monopoly on how wildlife decisions are made.
I have been advocating a radical change in F&G funding for years- but it’s very difficult. Most states are happy with their current funding strategies because they don’t have to use precious general fund tax dollars to support the department. Most hunters and fishermen are happy because they have a department that listens to them and puts their priorities first. And most other people just don’t care.
I think real change involves things- like raising fees for park usage and taxing goods like birdseed and binoculars that are used for nonconsumptive wildlife recreation- that are unpopular to many people. And, as of yet, there is little pressure to move the monolith. But I keep on advocating…
October 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM
POSSIBLE INCREASE IN QUOTA FOR YELLOWSTONE AREA…
CONFERENCE CALL ON TUESDAY
Wolf hunt temporarily suspended near Yellowstone
By EVE BYRON Independent Record The backcountry wolf hunt in Montana just north of Yellowstone National Park was suspended Thursday by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Even though the quota of 12 wolves in that hunting unit hasn’t been met, nine had been reportedly harvested so far, and state officials fear the quota will be filled by the time the general season starts on Oct. 25. That would mean hunters would only take wolves from the backcountry, instead of near ranches where they might have been preying on livestock.
“… We don’t want to kill the wilderness wolves and the wolves that don’t need some education, which are those on the ranch land,” said Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commissioner Ron Moody. “I want to ensure sufficient opportunity to be available during the general season.”
The commission plans to hold a conference call – open to the public – on Tuesday to discuss whether to increase the quota in that wolf management unit, known as a WMU. To do that, they would have to lower the quotas in one or both of the other WMUs to keep the total statewide quota at 75 wolves.
WMU 1 generally extends across Montana, north of I-90, with a quota of 41 wolves. WMU 2 is a patch of southwestern Montana stretching from Missoula south through the Bitterroot and Upper Big Hole valleys, with a wolf harvest quota of 22. WMU 3 runs across the southern tier of Montana from Dillon east to the Montana border
The state is facing a delicate balancing act in trying to tweak the quotas, warned FWP Attorney Bob Lane.
October 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM
What is your blog?
What do you think of the “Wildlife Watchers” concept?
October 9, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I’ll be checking your blog. Good on you for caring enough to write one.
I’ve been involved in several unsuccessful efforts to change the way wildife management in at least one western state is funded and I gotta say – you’re on the mark.
The really fascinating thing to me is that every time – whithout exception – we proposed taxes on birdseed, binoculars, film, etc. to help fund wildlife programs the so-called wildlife lovers fought tooth and nail against the proposals. When we asked them to help pass an increase of a couple of mills in the state sales tax to fund wildlife progams they couldn’t be bothered to help the campaign or to vote. Unlike the hunters, who organized and successfully fought those proposals because they would have taken “control” of the agency away from license buyers. Of course, after the initiatives failed, lots of those same wildlife lovers blasted the hunters for essentially being more effective in a democracy (not exactly the words they used but that was the real problem). As a consequence, the agency has never re-visited an idea that has been wildly successful elsewhere in this country. Meanwhile, most of the national wildlife groups settled into fund raising to pay lawyers to file lawsuits that win agency money to pay wildlife groups to pay lawyers to….nevermind.
Bottom line: it’s up to us. All politics are local and nobody else is going to do it for us. We get exactly what we deserve. Unfortunately the wildlife also gets what we deserve. Not good!
October 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Good points, Ralph. But who will organize these groups? And who will develop mission statements and other associated frameworks? Perhaps an existing group, like WWP, with an entirely independant infrastructure, would be available to get the new group up and running. The new group would be a collection of activists with a common goal.
Just a thought.
October 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I too am very upset about all this killing. Received emails from friends all over the world asking why we are killing the wolves. I believe this is just the begining of what will become gradually worse. If they ,Simes and company will reach into the Montana money wolf mecca of Yellowstone nothing is safe. I agree whole heartedly with Mgulo. Until we can change and control the money nothing is gonna change for the wolves. To make matters worse now that money via wolf permits is in the picture it will become more difillcult to stop. I say this with sarcasim, At some point this madness will have to stop. How will Simes and company justify their salaries. Im putting my money on Malloy!
October 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I talked to Mrs Simes for 20 minutes or so today. My impression is that the dept of fish wildlife and parks have no clue as to the effect that pack fragmentation plays in relation to livestock predation. I know some people on this blog are very informed and might be able to enlighten Mrs simes. She was nice until I mentioned that the livestock industry controls most of the political climate in Montana. I cited the dept of livestock and their mismanagement of the bison program as an example. She said that they are trying to balance all the forces at play and that it was difficult. The fact that they did not even consider a buffer around yellowstone park shows their ineptness.
October 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM
I’m truly sickened by this story and the loss of the Cottonwood pack and all the wolves that are dying in Montana and Idaho every day, like Jewel of the Phantom Hill Pack. This is so difficult to get through, to know this is going to go on and on the entire winter into early Spring.
Montana closed the backcountry Unit 3, which includes the wilderness around Yellowstone where the Cottonwood pack was killed. They have only suspened hunting there and they probably will re-open it on Oct. 25.
Why Judge Molloy didn’t grant the injunction to stop the hunts I don’t understand.? Killing an eniter wolf pack in a few short weeks, a pack that was doing nothing more then standing on the wrong side of the park boundary, proves these hunts are causing great damage to gray wolves in the Northern Rockies.
October 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Malloy didn’t stop the hunts, because the plaintiff didn’t have a convincing argument, plain and simple they did not show that harm to the population as a whole would be done.
October 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Is it just me or are the majority of arguments on this wolf pack being killed are focused many on emotion and not based on science?? They have been given names and people are acting like their first born child was killed. It was a great obituary that Katie wrote for sure, something I would expect to read in the newspaper about someones family member. But remember the wolves are not being managed INDIVIDUALLY but as a whole.. Imagine if we took this philosphy with all other animals, it would be a joke.
October 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I think you are right, many people have named and formed an emotional attachment to the wolves..
October 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Obtaining an injunction is a very difficult thing to do. They fact that conservation groups often get them is due to the arrogance and incompetence of their governmental opponents.
It looks like Judge Molloy will probably rule for wolf supporters in the end, but he didn’t think the hunt would do irreparable harm to the wolf populations in the meantime.
He will realize that he might be wrong.
Now, every outrage, every reported violation of the state wolf hunt laws that easily slips by, every stupid move like starting the hunt next to Yellowstone Park and wondering why so many wolves were shot, will go into his final reasoning. He could stop the hunt early, or more likely make it so that this is the only major wolf hunt that happens.
Of course, there is a small chance that those against this delisting plan now in effect will just plain lose.
October 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM
So many wolves shot? There has only been one violation in the wolf hunt so far, they numbers are still well below the quota’s that were accepted by Malloy…and the wolves in question were located in the state of Montana in a legally open hunting area, not in the park..
Not saying I am agreeing or disagreeing, but other than the Jerk that didn’t know where he was in Idaho(his claim) I don’t see anything that would have swayed the ruling on the injunction…
I don’t know how the ruling on delisting is going to go, but it does need to be based on the merit of science and not emotion to really have long term meaning…
October 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM
You are partly right, but it is also that people see this as an outrage against America’s national parks. Montana state government and the landed nobility that runs it has gotten away with treating the Park and its wildlife like it is their livestock too long.
If people take this like a death in the family plus an insult and respond politically, that is all to the better in the minds of many people I know, including myself.
October 9, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Where is the next communist party sign up rally?
October 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Josh – what’s a joke is that in Idaho, wolf managers keep saying that wolves will be managed just like bears and lions, as if wolves had something in common with them. As for managing for the “whole”, then the impacts of killing individuals needs to be considered to the whole pack. We are dealing with an intelligent social animal that relies on one another for survival. At the least, any wolf hunt should have begun slowly with a draw for a high priced tag, rather then making it clear, how little regard there is for wolves, by selling one for $11.50.
October 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Where was the outrage when elk leaving the park were hunted? I guess Orwell was right: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
October 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
“Imagine if we took this philosphy with all other animals, it would be a joke.”
Hardly. It would be a start towards true respect. It would be an acknowledgment that individuals matter. It would be an end to the idea that “wildlife” is a bock entity that only has value as a whole; an idea that subsumes the very real identity of individuals whose lives are of importance to them.
However, such a philosophy is indeed threatening to those who prefer that “wildlife” be considered a “resource” to be “managed” for the “benefit of humanity.”
Ironically- and in a great example of the power of cognitive dissonance- most of those who decry the naming of wild animals and the recognition of their individual personality and meaning probably go home to their dogs, greet them by name, and acknowledge their status as worthy individuals. Of course, this is an ad hominem argument, but it illustrates the point I wish to make quite well.
October 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
That should be “block identity” above. Damn typos.
October 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM
JWilliam huard says: “My impression is that the dept of fish wildlife and parks have no clue as to the effect that pack fragmentation plays in relation to livestock predation. I know some people on this blog are very informed and might be able to enlighten Mrs simes. She was nice until I mentioned that the livestock industry controls most of the political climate in Montana.”
Thats the whole point, whether you talk to ms. simes or not nothing changes. Ms simes and Co. are NOT listening to the wolf advocates in my opinion. I saw her speak of wolves during an Audubon meeting 3 years ago. I went thinking “oh great a wolf biologist, this will be interesting” the way she talked about wolves then was horrible. She had statements from the audience advocating for wolves and she still portrayed them as evil killers, not carnivores/animals. I have never liked this woman.
October 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Jay: a thought comes to mind: they are WAY MORE Elk than wolves… just a thought.
also millions of cattle…..
October 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM
typo: *there not they
cant write today too cold!
October 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Mgulu – You are not giving wildlife advocates enough credit. I know people who have gone to IDFG Commissioners meetings to speak up on various hunting proposals, and are treated so rudely, it was a wasted trip. (Commissioners talked during their testimony, shoveled papers, got up and went to the bathroom, etc).
I helped organize a meeting in Hailey 2 years ago on Idaho’s wolf hunt plan. A hundred people showed up, 99% pro wolf and spoke with good, solid reasons, against the hunt. Our IDFG Commissioner, Wayne Wright (head of the Commissioner) ignored all comment that night. He is a strident advocate for having a wolf hunt that would kill nearly half the state’s wolves.
Am curious which Game Commissioner said he wasn’t happy about a wolf hunt. That’s not my experience at all, inc. Gary Power.
I have approached elected officials in my district, about having a wolf license plate, and was flatly told, it would never fly because of the Idaho legislature. Such a plate could easily sell in the tens of thousands, with $10 going to “wolf mgt”.
The only way things are going to change in Idaho with regards to IDFG, is when the legislature changes, and a govenor gets into office who has some regard for a wolf, other then “I’m gonna get the 1st ticket & shoot me a wulf”.
I’d urge people to keep giving money to those groups on the front lines of wolf protection like Western Watersheds, Project, Defenders, and the group I work for – Boulder-White Clouds Council. We are working to save wolves every day.
October 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Jay – elk didn’t just come off the ESA, as if you didn’t know.
October 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Gline, why should it make a difference how many of one versus the other? If you want to compare on relative basis, the park has a saturated population of wolves, so relatively speaking there are as many, if not more wolves than elk. I like wolves, I like bears, lions, deer, elk, etc., but I don’t revere one over others, and I don’t know why rules for one species shouldn’t apply to others. If elk leaving the park can be hunted, so should wolves. If there’s going to be a “buffer” for wolves due to the sanctity of park wildlife, then there should be one for all wildlife leaving the park.
October 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
speaking of front lines Lynne, how was last night? I was thinking of you as I went to bed, thinking you have a very dangerous job. and wondering if any rednecks would be out in a blizzard. and thinking wolves would be safe in a blizzard…..
October 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
“I know people who have gone to IDFG Commissioners meetings to speak up on various hunting proposals, and are treated so rudely, it was a wasted trip. (Commissioners talked during their testimony, shoveled papers, got up and went to the bathroom, etc).”
Ain’t it the truth. Especially during the “mountain lion years,” I spent many a spring and summer day in various hearing rooms of the California Fish and Game Commission. I saw all this and more- I saw commissioners belittle people who spoke out against hunting cougars. I saw a commissioner state that he was going to vote for the hunt before the testimony at the first hearing even began. I saw commissioners greeting members of hunting groups at the podium as if they were old friends- and they probably were.
October 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM
I think you’re so right, Judge Molloy is watching this play out and it doesn’t look good for the “wolf managers” in Idaho and Montana. Not to include a “buffer zone” for Yellowstone’s and Glacier’s wolves is a huge mistake. I hold out hope that the judge will stop the hunts early but that probably won’t happen.
I believe in the end we will win the lawsuit and wolves will have their ESA protections returned BUT if environmentalists prevail there has to be a complete sea change in wolf recovery policy. It should include their entire previous home range and not just fragmented pockets in the Northern Rockies Then and only then will we have true wolf recovery.
October 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Good luck with that Nabeki–where do you plan on moving the agricultural centers, cities, etc., that sit on top of the wolves “previous” home range? What century do you think this is?
October 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Exactly Ralph. Watching Ken Burns history of the National Parks this past week I cannot even imagine what men like John Muir went through just to get people to look past everything on our earthly landscape as a commodity ! And thank the lord above they had the tenacity to not give up. There are some of us that are sick and tired of allowing wildlife management to remain controlled by those same types of means. God forbid we actually look at these animals with some compassion and respect. And to Josh and Ryan BACK OFF of Kathie’s reports – they are NOT written for you. They are written for those of us that cannot believe that well behaved wolves living around a National Park aren’t safe from the all mighty hunter. And so we attached to some of them – big deal! One my of my favorite Lakota quotes goes something like this: “A rifle used to shoot a wolf, never aims straight again”…hope none of those folks start shooting each other…..
October 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM
I think the judge may be rethinking his decsion after the sloppy management demonstrated so far by both Idaho and especially Montana. Yellowstone and Glacier wolves are completely unprotected if they step one toe out of the parks and we’ve seen what can and will happen when they do.
October 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
People can get emotional over animals and that is a good thing. . not to do so would be a to deny our nature. We are animals too, even though some religions teach that animals are just an object for us to enjoy in any way we see fit, they are out of touch with reality. Reality is that we are connected deeply with animals and the habitat we all live in. Each animal, be it your pet dog, a bear, a fox or chicken has a distinct personality. Naming them is a shortcut. .just like naming a human, because a name is attached to the history of that individual. In other words you can say the “the young female wolf who is responsible for the pups this year and who is the daughter of such and such wolf” or simply just give the name which is attached to the history. It is a shortcut way of telling the story. Those who accuse others of having too much sentiment for animals usually also love their own pets . .they just don’t see the connection because they have become disjointed from the natural world. Personally I prefer wild pets from the spider who lives outside my window to a bull elk I love to run into in the wild every year. We high five that we each made it another year.
October 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
“Jay – elk didn’t just come off the ESA, as if you didn’t know.”
Grey wolf populations as a whole have never actually been endangered… Didn’t ya know?
Defintion: a species whose numbers are so small that the species is at risk of extinction
October 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM
What’s the ESA?
October 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I disagree Linda–I look at naming wildlife as a means of domesticating them, making them fit into the confines of our nice, tidy little world. Why can’t they just be wolves and do what they do, without us attaching human labels to them? Why do they need names to appreciate them for what they are? In my eyes, naming them takes away a bit of the wildness that they epitomize.
October 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Endangered Species Act
Ryan: what in the world are you talking about?Is that your personal, emotional opinion? or science? Why would they have been put on the ESA to begin with???
October 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Have you talked to Rick M.?
Has he said anything or is he still the reserved person in public we all tend to see.
We may have to wait for his letter to arrive to see how he is talking the loss of those wolves.
October 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Jay It is probably very hard for you to accept names attached to wolves because if you were so attached, you would not be able to stomach the thought of that individual being shot. It has to do with connection.
D mech writes about the different personalities of wolves in his book “The Wolf” and so does Adolf Murie. They are intelligent beings with different personalities. hence, a name ain’t such a big paradigm shift.
Wolves don’t know they have names by us, so they will still be wild. And wolves dont need to epitomize wildness for you…
October 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Does ESA refer to the Endangered Species Act? In which case Ryan meant the Endangered Species List?
Hunters accuse conservationists or anyone against hunting or people who are for long-term survival of wolves of being emotional. What is emotionless and scientific about shooting an animal? Isn’t emotion involved in the enjoyment they get?
From an unemotional point of view it doesn’t make sense to shoot collared wolves, animals involved in a project. Unless you are gunning for them in particular for an emotional reason. In which case those hunters hurt their own position.
I’d like to hear more about changing the funding sources for wildlife management programs. There seems to be real promise in that idea as long as it evens the position. I hate the idea of contributing more money for Ms. Simes’ salary unless it buys something for my point of view.
October 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
gline – re. last night in Eagle Creek. One hunter of some ilk was target practicing at his camp. Guess he wanted to make certain the deer and wolves knew he was there. After dark, the same black pickup truck, I had seen the night before using a predator call at dark, came driving up the canyon. I pulled over, likely ruining their plans to spotlight or use a predator call to try and lure in a Phantom, even though it was long past legal shooting time.
The Mountain Express blog has comments from the wolf-foes, who are furious that I am present in Eagle Creek. This leads me to believe that perhaps B445, the wolf shot Monday, was not taken in a legal manner. Also, the wolf’s killer is upset that his name can be obtained through a State Records Request – which I filed immediately upon hearing of the wolf’s death.
I suppose the wolf-foes read this blog, so I am going to say to them – I expect that your mob will try and frame me in the coming days, saying I am breaking the law. I have a camera with video, and a digital tape recorder – so be forewarned (Billy Ward, Matt Douthit and all the rest of the Blaine Co lobo-foes).
October 9, 2009 at 2:31 PM
By definition they Grey wolf population as a whole is in no danger of extinction. They were listed on the ESA because the ESA deals with traditional habitats as well as population numbers. Its all about what the popular animals are doing. For Example there is probably as many wolves as moose in Oregon, except wolves are esa listed in oregon and not moose.
October 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
If anyone has contacts with regional and national media, please put them in touch with me via http://wildwhiteclouds.org. The world needs to know what is going on and I think this weekend, is going to be something to see what with a vigilante mass going after “those black SOB bastards” (as was posted on the Mt Express blog). The Phantom Pack is all black.
October 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Don’t pschoanalyze me gline, you don’t have any idea of my thought processes behind my thinking. Maybe it’s just because I have an understanding of the the fact of life, did that cross your mind? Wolves kill elk–should I get emotional and upset when jewel kills jessica (to borrow from previous statement)? Or when the bull elk turns the tables and stomps on jewel’s head? No, I’m not going to get upset and emotional, because part of nature, part of living, is dying. I appreciate the process, the big picture, I don’t pick out little bits and pieces to turn into favored pets.
October 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM
If you get in the way of legal hunting, no matter what moral superiority you feel you have, you can be prosecuted for hunter harassment. Just an FYI
October 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I’ve named deer, elk, cows, lambs, and goats.. Never had a problem killing them or eating them though. Its how life works, some people can do their own dirty work, some have to pay others to do it.
October 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM
ryan you cannot guess why they were put on the ESA out of your own opinion. Wolves were put on the ESA by Federal Law. Read the ESA. Yes, I have read it many times.
October 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM
hey it took my real name, heather is gline
Heather you can’t have two names on this blog. It’s got to be Heather or Gline, period. This is my only warming to you. Ralph Maughan
October 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Great, glad to know you can eat something you named. Like someone said earlier, it is a form of cognitive dissonance. and denial. and dominance. Personally I could not kill what I named, nurtured, photographed and knew. This isnt really the particular blog for this argument as it is meant to be an obit for the wolves that died in vain. So quit distracting us and I’m going to stop fueling you.
October 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Jay when you open your mouth on here, you are open to any type of response. Being that it is largely a wolf advocate blog, and you seem to be going against that vain, you are going to hear what you disagree with, as so will I.
“because part of nature, part of living, is dying” this wolf hunt is not nature. it is not natural. Humans are not “natural” anymore.
October 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
“Why can’t they just be wolves and do what they do, without us attaching human labels to them? ”
We are humans, thus we label. And labels, by their very definitions, create preconceptions. It is far easier to look at the nameless and faceless and reduce them to objects to be feared and hated, or treat them as unimportant cogs in some vast machinery. It’s no accident that we dehumanize others by labeling them with numbers rather than names, just as it’s no accident that recent research shows that named dairy cows give more milk than those who just get an ear tag.
Animals are unique individuals, and names, while imperfect labels, emphasize that individuality. I would much rather that every wolf in the West be labeled with a name than be labeled “elk murderer,” “worthless varmint,” “goddam Canadian wolf” or other such appellations.
October 9, 2009 at 3:05 PM
You hit the nail on the head, we are also an animal, and despite outrage, animals will do what animals do…
October 9, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Lynne: seems like you could use some help from fish and wildlife dept, since they have been endowed with the responsibility of protecting and maintaining our wildlife populations in a LEGAL way. Thank god this is a free country and we can express our opinions without being shot.
fyi gline is heather I have been trying to change that. not trying to have 2 identities Ralph!!!!
October 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Save bears we are an animal but also stewards. “doing what animals do” doesnt justify this “hunt”. That’s akin to “boys will be boys”- which is a permanent excuse at being a jerk.
October 9, 2009 at 3:16 PM
So now Hunters are Jerks? The hunters, with the exception of one in Idaho have done nothing illegal..The states set the seasons and quota’s and the hunters have pretty much followed the rules, there has been only one that has broke the law, and he admitted it! And I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent, hunters don’t tolerate poachers and when you break the law, you cross the line..
October 9, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Heather, I’m fine with you commenting on my comments, but don’t pretend to know the emotions or thoughts behind what I say, or use your preconceptions and judge how I’m somehow not thinking or allowing myself to think in your mindset that somehow makes me wrong.
October 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I want to personally thank you for what you’re doing, especially putting yourself out there and talking risks to protect the wolves.
You nailed it on why we get emotionally involved with wolves or any animals that are persecuted in the way wolves are, grizzlies come to mind. Wolf advocates are invested in these animals and whether we refer to them as wolf 445 or Jewel, they are very real. Wolves are so unique with their strong family bonds and individual natures. I’d rather belong to the empathetic crowd then the one that can look through a scope and pull the trigger on an animal who’s only crime is that it exists.
October 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM
I I hate to repeat myself but this starts at the top. To appoint a cattle rancher as the secertary of state just means trouble. Then naming wolves b22 or c239 like they have no souls. Many indian tribes killed for food and manhood but they paid respect to the animals and the wilderness in gereral,what have we learned in a hundred years, many of us, not much. We take these animls to reintroduce them in our country, then we have a hunt to kill them, makes a great deal of sense doesn’t it.
October 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Yes Nabeki, you’re right, wolves are social, and a lot more like people than you’d like to admit. They murder each other (to apply a human term to the act) in war-like conflicts with neighboring packs; packs single out and pick on individuals within their own pack (or family, if we’re going to use human terms), to the point of ostracizing that individual, or even killing it; they obviously take joy and excitement in hunting–just watch some of the Nat-Geo footage of wolves gathering with tails wagging and “doggy smiles” before going out on a hunt and in pursuit of elk or deer. I don’t say this to denegrate wolves–I don’t care either way, that’s what wolves do–but wolf ecology doesn’t really mesh well with the Walt Disney portrayal that you seem to assign to it.
October 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I am saddened by this news.
Not because I am some sappy, emotional wolf lover (though I am). More-so because so many people are happy about it. I live in a Wyoming town with more “Save 100 Elk, Kill a Wolf” stickers on vehicles then the formally ubiquitous “Baby on Board”.
When hunters kill elk, or deer or pronghorn there is almost a feeling of thankfullness to the animal, maybe because this animal will help to feed their families. The disgusting comments that are made when wolves are killed proves to me that the wolf will NEVER be respected.
October 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Where can I get a “save 100 wolves, eliminate a rancher T-shirt”
October 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM
“Where can I get a “save 100 wolves, eliminate a rancher T-shirt”
So now, we are going to advocate wolves over humans?
Things are getting pretty scary around here…
October 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Every single person who pays taxes in this country is involved in wolf restoration as it was a Federal Program, funded by Federal dollars(peoples dollars)
This is really getting ridiculous…
October 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
“Great, glad to know you can eat something you named. Like someone said earlier, it is a form of cognitive dissonance. and denial. and dominance. Personally I could not kill what I named, nurtured, photographed and knew.”
Remember that next time your eating an animal derived piece of protein or for that matter anything, as animals were killed or displaced no matter what food type is.
BTW, reread my comment, by definition, grey wolves were never endangered as a population whole, just in geographic areas. At this point though by your responeses, its obivious that emotion has clouded any logical thought on the manner.
October 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
What is so sad, is people don’t realize, there are just as many advocating against wolves as there is advocating for wolves and both sides, based on our system have the right to do so..
October 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM
The middle ground is dead it seems to me, only more polarizing extremeist views seem to have any traction. If wolves get relisted, its only going to get worse……. Much worse.
October 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM
IMO this blog proves that wolf hunting will never be approved by the pro-wolf side.. And Chris Waller how are we supposed to manage deer/elk individually?? So I get the deer tag with “Timmy” the deer and my buddy gets the elk tag of “Brutus”??? Give me a break Chris.. You want a draw with a high priced tag, I guarantee they generated more money this way than they would of by doing any sort of draw with a $200 tag. They sold almost 20,000 tags at $11.50 a pop. Not many people would of put in for a wolf tag that cost $200-500 dollars, I can guarantee that. Lynne then you want someone to hold each wolf hunters hand while they shoot “Amanda” or “Charles” the wolf you want?? How in the heck would that work!!??? You guys are trying to demonize hunters, calling them murderes and killers, like you are referring to humans. Lynne you are so emotionally attached to these wolves that any compromise with you would be a waste of time. It would be like trying to compromise the death of ones child.. It just would not happen.. And the pro-wolf side wonders why hunters I mean “rednecks and killers and murderers” are not on board with wolf re-introduction.. The funny thing is 20 years you could hardly see an elk in Utah. Thanks to many wildlife orgs and sportsmen they are in great supply, apply that to sheep, moose and ALOT of other creatures that “rednecks and killers and murderers” have helped rebound in great numbers in our state. I would not mind at all in wolves were brought back in UT as long as we managed them from the very beginning. But I see the emotional circus and drama in MT and ID and we would be foolish to even entertain the idea of wolves being brought back to UT.. Just my .02 cents.. Though I think it would be cool to have em.. Just dont want the baggage they bring.
October 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM
You must not be a golfer…I mean a sheep hunter. Those big massive curl guys, the 200 score ones, the salivating power transfer folks with little p…. want, they name. It helps get those bids up at the govenors auction.
And in my country of Thorofare any big bulls, the 7×7’s or 7×8’s who were so hard to get, those that stayed just inside the park, were named with such as “herf”, the bull who was so old his bugle came out all coarse and sounding like ….. well herf.
October 9, 2009 at 5:24 PM
“The middle ground is dead it seems to me, only more polarizing extremeist views seem to have any traction. If wolves get relisted, its only going to get worse……. Much worse.”
It will get worse, I think. But I do have data that suggests that views are not any more extreme now than they were in the late 1990s.
To me it seems this is a fight between environmentalists and the livestock industry; unfortunately, hunters have been caught in the middle.
October 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Trolls, trolls, trolls. Is there nowhere to go to mourn and organize without the trolls coming out of the woodwork?
My last word on this story: I never entered Yellowstone until last week. I barely know who the famous wolves are. I live in Montana and have always accepted the need for the ones that killed livestock to be “managed” whether that meant moved, collared or killed. The teacher at the Yellowstone Institute course affirmed this point of view, and he’s prowolf. After talking to the people in Yellowstone I am now prowolf and thought I had finally understood this issue and what side I landed on. Thanks to hunters who kill wolves CLEARLY wearing collars for SCIENTIFIC purposes and thanks to the reports from Idaho about spotlight hunting and thanks EVEN MORE to the josh sunderlands and compadres here, I think I am seeing that the hunters cannot accept a middle ground.
October 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I am way behind in the sheep game, it takes 30 years of applying to have the points to draw a sheep tag, or a few hundred thousand, and there has only been 2-3 200 inch rams killed in the last 10 years or so, considering the world record is like 206 I believe. Not a big sheep guy, to expensive and never get a tag. I perfer elk, hunters around me name specific elk, I never have. So Bob, if I want to kill a 400 inch bull, or a 200 inch deer I have a little p…..?? What are we 10 at recess.. I like the challenge of killing a 400 inch bull or a 200 inch deer, has nothing to do with the size of my reproductive organ. Your interesting.
October 9, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Thanks to hunters who kill wolves CLEARLY wearing collars for SCIENTIFIC purposes and thanks to the reports from Idaho about spotlight hunting and thanks EVEN MORE to the josh sunderlands and compadres here, I think I am seeing that the hunters cannot accept a middle ground.
So what middle ground are you talking about then? Is you middle ground no hunt at all? Wheres your middle ground? BTW, when they are running, its real hard to see collars. Hell half of them are collared anyways, I could see the challenge in killing a mature wolf ethically without a collar.
Speaking of little peckers, with the size of your ego and love of seeing your own written word, sure your not making up for something?
October 9, 2009 at 5:39 PM
RL–are you not seeing the comments on the ultra-pro wolf side? E.g., wolves must be restored to the entirety of their previous habitat…does that not sound completely insane to you? Do you think the person who said that is packing up their home and getting ready to move back to Europe to make room for the wolves that used to live there?
The funny thing about this all, I’m 100% behind having the wolves back, but I find that some of the pro-wolf folks are so extreme in their viewpoints that I end up arguing with them, even though you could say we’re on the same side of the fence (just turns out some are beyond the fence and over in to the next county).
October 9, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I have no illusions that wolves are big puppies. They’re apex predators and do what they do because it’s in their nature to do it. And in doing so they keep ecosystems healthy, whiich is why they’re here.
I also see nothing wrong with having an emotional attachment to wolves as a group or as individuals. I’m deeply saddened by the death of the Druid Peak Pack Wolf Limpy, who died in 08. Someone shot him because they could. What purpose did that serve?
If wolves were left to themselves they would live their lives without all the high drama. Humans are the ones that bring the baggage to the wolf issue.
October 9, 2009 at 5:49 PM
A lot of people held out hope that the wolf hunt would end the polarization — holding a hunt would cause those who hunt the wolf because they hate it to change their minds.
It was also hoped that there were quite a few who just wanted a trophy.
It was hoped that those who don’t want to see wolves hunted at all would come to realize that the wolf population would rebound despite the hunt.
It’s not going to happen. Those people who didn’t hold out hope, the cynics (or are they the realists?) knew the nature of the conflict better. This damn thing is going to go on and on. The only winners will be the landed nobility in the states.
October 9, 2009 at 7:15 PM
“I find that some of the pro-wolf folks are so extreme in their viewpoints that I end up arguing with them, even though you could say we’re on the same side of the fence…”
The same can be said from the other side. We spoke of the wolf issue today in class; I told the students that the saddest part of the issue is–unlike most polarized NR issues–the vast majority of people agree on the specifics of wolf management. The problem is we end up getting caught in these value-laden debates.
Silly when you really think about it.
October 9, 2009 at 7:25 PM
I admit, I do like to put a little color in the words once in a while. Maybe I get it from my dad. He farmed hard 7 days a week and had five rascalls running around keeping him from getting a decent nap. But there wasn’t a day go by that I didn’t hear a little chuckle coming from him. It was all for himself. Looking back, I wish I would have asked him sometimes what his thoughts were to allow for this very private humor.
I do the same. I think of all kinds of scenes from movies. Comes from all those years riding the back country entertaining myself, I guess. …kind of like my start of the last comment to Josh where I said, “You must not be a golfer”. This comes from the movie “the Big Lewboski” where the thug picks up the bowling ball and says, “what the f… is this?” and the dude responds, “Obviously your not a golfer”. I saw a lot of parallels in someone who talks of sissies naming animals, but then doesn’t see the light or connection with all the macho guys naming animals as long as it is for macho purposes.
Obviously, I don’t keep it all to myself like my dad did. I like to pass it around a bit, especially when all those too serious guys… closet cases like Fred (Animal House)…I mean you …..don’t have the manners enough to respect others sorrow.
And tell your side kick, Josh, he needs to get beyond firearms junior high first rifle beliefs before he start quoting bullet drop. After the bullets leave the gun they don’t arc up before coming down. Or is that new to you also?
And sorry you and Josh took it so personal with that power transfer thing. one has to be careful who you are addressing. Never know when it hits home and might be someone “challenged”. I apologize for my insensitivity.
And as for shooting wolves with collars I think I have a pretty good idea of why wolf “hunters” zero in on these animals. They must have done the same thing my brothers and I did when young.We use to set quarter sticks of dynamite at varying distances on the fourth of July. Then we’d take turns with the 30-06 making BIG explosions. Do you guys really think, because these collars have powerful batteries in them, if you hit this collar it will blow up…just like you learned could happen to your car battery if you made a spark with all that hydrogen off gassing?
October 9, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Ryan – I have a wolf tag. Intend to do a lot of wolf hunting, just as I have done every day for the past four years. Am well acquainted with Idaho Statute 36-1510 that details how no one must ever think of interfering with a hunter trying to kill anything.
Josh – don’t try and tell me what I feel and think about wolves.
I see that the Phantom Hill thread has been shut down, just as it was beginning to roll. This is exactly the reason why I have gone to Facebook, where friends can talk, and not constantly be defending ourselves and our beliefs about wolves, or other issues to people like Ryan, Josh and others. I get enough of the anti’s every day, without having to hear it on what I think of as a pro-wolf blog.
October 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Since the web master has shut down any futher blogging on this site about the Phantoms, if anyone is interested — go to my Facebook page and learn about who killed B445 “Jewel”. See ya there.
October 9, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Well Lynne. You might do well to go to Facebook.
I’m not saying that in a mean or dismissive way. Maybe Facebook is better for organizing
October 9, 2009 at 7:34 PM
I am very upset. I am not sure what to say and what to do.
Where are Defenders. Where is WWF. I think we are spednin gtoo much money protecting tigers and other animlas and we are not saving our own wildlife…
October 9, 2009 at 7:35 PM
I really have a problem with the two words control and wildlife in the same sentence . I have been following the current events for the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana , it’s sad, I don’t get it, shoot a animal but you can’t eat it , don’t get it, that’s right let’s control ! There’s that word again ! I live near Yellowstone and Teton National Parks, trust me I am so happy to have wolves live near me , to have something that wild is a dream, but the dollar always will win first, think you know what I mean, pure politics
October 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I’m taking my bat and ball and going somewhere else, dammit…
October 9, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Unfortunately the only things that the wolf huggers and wolf haters can agree on is that the wolf should be managed by our emotions and not by science, in the mean time this wonderful species and it’s future suffers.
October 9, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Why did you shut down the Phantom thread, Ralph? This is the pack that is most visible in Idaho, and that so many locals and visitors have been able to see. Wolf advocates everywhere should be working together, to use the Phantoms, as a pack outside of Yellowstone that the world can come to know, and to see. Yet, there is this animosity toward the Phantoms among certain supposed wolf supporters.
And you will probably be happy to know, that my beloved Basin Butte wolves near Stanley, are once again under the gun from Wildlife Services. And that one of the ten wolves killed in the Sawtooth Zone, was a 25 lb Basin Butte pup, shot by a lobo-foe from Challis.
October 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM
The real problem here is Obama and Salazar. What was Obama thinking? The Interior Secretary is the real enemy, and the sooner Obama gets rid of this political liability, the better. Conservationists were largely Obama supporters last year, and then he slaps them in the face with the appointment of Salazar. Great political move, Barack! What a way to reward your supporters. Maybe they’ll stay home next time you need the votes.
October 9, 2009 at 8:22 PM
I got a feeling Ralph shut down the Phantom thread because sweet point and I were discussing those way up north in their igloos without any threads. For my part I promise not to have anymore fun…at least not tonight. I see no harm reopening the can of worms.
October 9, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Believe it or not I was going to head it back to the wolves and Ralph’s point about how people see themselves in wolf packs, etc., etc.
I do think it is an important factor in understanding the publics feelings towards wolves. I agree with Ralph that people often see, in wolves, things they do not like about themselves.
But I will just shut the fuck up.
October 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Out where I live in WY, the collared wolves are the ones that are easily shot by Wildlife Services. The wolf study last year had only two wolves that were able to be captured for the program. When a cow was killed, one of the collared ones was shot. Very easy to locate. So if there’s no respect for studied wolves even among the feds…
I also wonder…the statement by Montana G&F about how they were shocked how accessible and easy to find and kill were the nearby Yellowstone wolves. Isn’t that a no-brainer. Those wolves are used to people around all the time doing no harm. At least the wolves outside the Park hear helicopters and run. But those wolves have no adaptation for bullets.
October 9, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Points, although I may not agree to what you say, but you have as much right to say it on this blog (so long as the blog-owner allows–it’s Ralph’s site, so he gets to make the calls) as Sailor-mouth Stone, so don’t take it personally. Once we resort to that kind of talk, the game is pretty much over, hopefully we can disagree without stooping to that level.
October 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Bob, I read your interview online in ’08 New West. Kudos and love your thinking outside of the management box.
Living way out in the natural world, when the humans go away for the winter and the wildlife rule here, starting around January (because that’s finally when the ATV’ers, hunters, recreation vehicles, etc. don’t come here no more, the noisy humans leave and the elk come down from Yellowstone; the moose roam and the wolves do their thing), the Land is the Teacher. I’ve been pondering how animals in fact are not lower, but actually a unique display of what is beyond the human in their ability to be simple and draw you into the elegance of contemplation.
What if we all, as a culture, began to approach this question from that beginning–hunters, ranchers, and lovers of wolves and all wildlife. What a great starting point.
October 9, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I am very saddened by all the news of the day. The entire Cottonwood Pack wiped out by hunters. And to make matters even worse, the news of the death of beautiful wolf 302. At least, his ending was not by a hunters bullet. He died as he lived and now his goodness has returned to the soil. I observed all of these wolves for quite a long time and will miss them terribly. Saw them this winter and spring and was looking forward to my trip in January. Yellowstone won’t be the same without looking for 302 and wondering what he’s up to or who he’s with. I guess he’s crossed the Rainbow Bridge and hopefully one of his pups will inherit his gallant and mischevious ways. And I totally agree with anyone who mentioned that there should have been some sort of buffer zones around Yellowstone Park to protect the wolves that may have put one paw out of place. Such a sad day.
October 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM
I am reading all of this while sitting here in my trailer in Yellowstone. There have been wolves around Mammoth in the past few days and the elk are staying day and night in the campground to avoid them. I get serenaded all night long by bugling bull elk.
Wolf 302 (I hate giving wild animals numbers) was killed by other wolves. I was in the area when his body was removed. Some of the wolf watchers looked so sad that I thought one of their members had suffered a heart attack and died. Are the numbered and named wolves supposed to win all of the time?
If 302 was the same wolf I photographed in the same area last year, he was handicapped with a giant GPS collar. Those big collars make great handles for the other wolf in the fight to grab and control the collared wolf while other wolves in the opposing pack tear him apart.
October 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM
We have discussed that people see in wolves things that they do not like about themselves. But, Lynne, the converse is also true, people see in hunters things they do not like about themselves.
These things they see may or may not reflect reality in either case.
October 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM
“BTW, reread my comment, by definition, grey wolves were never endangered as a population whole, just in geographic areas. At this point though by your responeses, its obivious that emotion has clouded any logical thought on the manner.”
I dont need to reread your post. And that seems to be YOUR definition as I had said. Obviously, we are polarized.
You could start a different perspective on wolves by reading David Mech’s :”The Wolf The Ecology and Behavior of an ENDANGERED Species” Copyright 1970 with most data coming from Adolf Murie, circa 1930 and David’s from 1950-1960s.
October 9, 2009 at 9:57 PM
* sorry about the two names folks earlier as I had mentioned but I’ll stick with gline.. has been this way for a couple of years now.
October 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Larry, we met in Yellowstone a while back and I admired your photos, but I feel your comment above is astonishingly
insensitive and out of line.
I know some of the people who were in the area when 302’s body was located. They were truly sad because they had become attached to this singular animal that they had followed for 8 or 9 years. How dare you insult their sincere feelings of grief? What’s it to you if a few people shed tears over an animal they came to care about?
And although you have a right to complain about collars as a matter of opinion, you rarely mention that you alter your own photos to disguise those collars on the wolf photographs you try to sell. But to suggest that 302 died in an overly gruesome way because of his collar, is not only a peculiar and creepy stretch of imagination, but especially tasteless given that the news is barely two days old.
I have credible evidence that he was NOT mauled or torn up, but that his coat looked particularly good. I don’t mean he died peacefully in his sleep, far from it, but 302 died the death of a wild wolf, and that is a comfort to most of us who cared about him, at least I know it is to me.
And by the way, 302’s “giant” collar did not interfere with him surviving two years of sporadic rumbles with larger-wolf 21 while 302 was attempting to woo 21’s daughters; it did not interfere with his charming and mating with just about every adult female on the Northern Range; it did not stop him from making the take down hold on various bull elk at the end of a chase during his Druid Pack years; it did not stop him (at 7 years old) from repeatedly running off two courting gray males who were interested in his daughters and nieces day after day for months in 2007-2008; it did not stop him from finally abandoning his batchelor ways to form his own pack on the Blacktail, surviving mange, become a respected alpha, and raise 5 healthy pups; nor did it interfere with his travelling all over the Northern Range in his last week of life.
Good lord, Larry, we know of at least two Yellowstone wolves who have managed to survive on 3 legs for years despite that handicap. The weight or annoyance of a collar is nothing compared to the loss of a leg. Honestly, I wouldn’t be sorry if the need for collars went away, but for you to promote your personal propaganda on this date and in this way is tactless and shameful, in my opinion.
As for buffer zones – someone earlier suggested why a buffer zone for just wolves? I agree. I’d prefer a “no hunting” buffer zone around Yellowstone (or any National Park) for all wildlife. I’m ok with well-regulated hunting. But I think the rules of this wolf hunt need a good deal of adjustment.
Lynne, thanks for putting your safety on the line for the Idaho wolves. I wish I had the means to join you. Please be careful, though.
Finally, to Save Bears – I think you said something about hunters not tolerating poachers. I would like to know (if you know) what the ethical hunters (the vast majority) are doing – if anything – to address the instances of poaching-type practices that come to light. Is any hunting club or organization making inquiries about the possible poisoning of those six Idaho wolf pups a month or so ago? Is there any effort to monitor certain areas where local people are known to be prone to using spotlights, or using predator calls after dark? Is there any effort to encourage stiffer fines for poaching incidents?
Thanks in advance
October 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM
“and thanks to the reports from Idaho about spotlight hunting and thanks EVEN MORE to the josh sunderlands and compadres here, I think I am seeing that the hunters cannot accept a middle ground.”
“REPORTS” about spotlight hunting??
BS!!!! Rumors and sensationalism is more like it — show me even ONE confirmed report — I don’t think you can.
It’s pretty easy to figure out who is starting the rumors, but that person is kind of prejudiced on the subject. Gossip does not make a “report”??
AND. speaking of “middle ground”, I’d like to see you get that same person to concede EVEN A LITTLE BIT on ANY sort of control (legal, lethal, or laughable) on Canis Lupus.
October 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Yes, one bit of gossip shouldn’t turn into news.
Not to defend gossip as news, but I do know that same person does support some wolf control, though usually not.
October 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Wendy, if you haven’t figure it out by now, larry has no problem throwing out wild speculation as fact, or accusing people he doesn’t know of doing things with absolutely zero evidence or proof to back it up.
October 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I’ve been thinking alot over the past few weeks since the wolf hunt began and I can only come up with the feeling that there is something selfish about this hunt that is somehow connected to posession.
I was lucky enough to have a “Jewel” experience myself. So were many others. I have heard through the blogs that many, many of us enjoyed this curious teenager of a wolf. Well, no more.
This “hunter” decided that no, I will be the last person to ever see this wolf. And I don’t want to eat it but I want to have it and stuff it and it will be mine. No one else will ever get to see Jewel or the countless other wolves that have been shot in the last few weeks.
I really don;t have any other explanation for what’s going on than it is the same mentality that caused the extermination of the buffaloe and the removal of native americans to their reservations.
October 10, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Sorry Ralph did not know about the one name thing will do.
Dave my point exactly, Obama what was he thinking a cattle rancher. In my opinion Clinton should have been the only one to win the Noble peace prize he had Bruce Babbit,the ex president of the Wilderness Society as secretary of Interior ,bingo best president for the environment. Richard Dreyfuss in “call of the wild”, at end of the movie when the Eskimo killed the white wolf for a set of teeth. Dreyfuss explained he went to explore how the wolf was living with no known predators, but stated when man tries to explore wildlife their will always be a man to kill the wildlife for profit. In the end he would never go to explore again. I hope their will be places where man can never find on this earth. To Lynne and Carl who can I contribute to, I been giving to Defenders of Wildlife and EarthJustice and NRDC, who else would help more? P.S. One more thing years ago I started a trip in Riggins Inn followed the Nez Perce trail white bird the first battle,this was by the cascades in Idaho,seven Devils Drive. Then went to the wolf introduction house,their they showed me how many packs were developing. I thought in years to come they will have a hunt for revenue in the state and it came to me this introduction is about money for hunters, I like to hear from Ralph,Lynne or Carl on this or anybody?
October 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Every ethical hunting group I have been involved in has always reported and well as watched out for poachers and other who do illegal acts under the guise of hunting..everybody I hunt with, keeps a phone with them and the poaching numbers with their hunting lic so they can report when they see of suspect something illegal.
I have not heard anything about the pups that died, and would like to hear the reason.
As far as using predator calls after dark, as far as I know, it is only illegal if the intent is to kill a wolf, it does not apply to coyotes, so unless a wolf is killed, it would be very difficult to prove someone is not hunting for coyotes.
I don’t personally know any hunters that condone poaching. We certainly don’t need criminals to represent what we do..
As far as fines, we have seen a large increase in fines for poachers over the last decade, with the declarations of trophy fines for certain animals, which is in the tens of thousands on certain animals, the majority of those increases have come from the lobbying efforts of hunters and hunting groups.
I also know, groups that a pushing for instead of just loosing your hunting privilege for a specific time, that if your convicted of a wildlife crime, you should be fined or jailed and loose the privilege for life as well as have your guns confiscated.
Hunters are sportsmen and women who care about the animals they hunt as well as the habitat they hunt in, poachers are criminals that steal from us all, hunters and non-hunters.
October 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Be at peace 302M, 527F and 716F. I will miss you greatly.
October 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM
To Wendy….thank you for your touching tribute to 302. He, like all the others, #10, #9, #7, #21, #42 and endless others, will stay in my heart and mind forever. They all have contributed significantly to the Yellowstone Wolf Project and to all wolf research. Without their collars and tracking, we may have never known where they were or who they were. We were given the opportunity to get a better view and understanding into their lives and habits. Wolf 302 is a legend and I will really miss trying to locate him and see what he’s up to. I’ll always remember how he revived the Druids in their darkest hour and came to be the brave wolf that he was. He died a fitting death….fighting for survival to the very end. What a great life he had in Yellowstone Park and when I see other wolves, I’ll always wonder if part of his genes can be found in them. He did get around a lot….and that will turn this sadness to fond memories and a smile.
October 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Is it possible that the wolves are extra aggressive because they are running confused because of the hunt ?
October 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Are the wolves more aggressive because of the hunt ?
October 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I would wonder why, there is no hunt going on inside the park, and 302 was quite a ways removed from where the hunt was allowed..
October 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I doubt the hunt outside the Park has a psychological effect on those wolves inside the Park.
The Cottonwoods just got caught over that straight line that is the Park’s northern boundary.
In case there is some confusion, there is no wolf hunt going on inside Yellowstone Park.
October 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Actually my definition came from the dictionary and encyclopedia.
I’m not anti-wolf, I just think that hunts arent a bad thing or the end of the world. Obiviously dissenting thoughts that provoke discussion that could possibly lead to some middle ground area are not what your looking for.
October 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Richie, conflicts between various competing packs has been common in and out of the park prior to the hunting seasons. Past posts on this site have discussed inter pack conflicts, attacks. and deaths. Lone wolves moving through other wolf territories are also attacked by the territory holders. Wolves also see coyotes and domestic dogs as competitors and will kill them.
October 10, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I dont think there is any evidence of any wolves being
“extra aggressive” in or out of the Park since the hunt began. If other wolves killed 302 (which is the current thinking based on visual evidence), it would be something completely in character for a wild wolf population. We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know 302 was outside his regular home territory, and that the area was frequented by other packs. It is typical behavior that when packs meet, one pack will chase the other and kill or injure any individual that is caught. This is one way apex predator populations tend to “regulate themselves” in their habitat.
Save Bears – thanks so much for that info.
October 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM
It seems to me that the park boundries are established. The tendencies of those that believe their opinion is right will never stop at a newly established no hunt boundry. In other words a ten mile buffer zone will quickly turn to a twenty mile buffer zone.
October 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM
302M was very old for a wolf, and he lived a great wolf life. What a lover!
The young “guys” finally caught him 😉
At least that’s one possibility. It was not a human caused death.
October 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Carl I understand what you are saying I seen it first hand with a decoy from a pack, but I just thought with all the hunting, maybe their is a sense of what is going on outside the park. Do we know that some of the hunted wolves ran into the park into packs that they are related to? Not to say they know the boundries but ran into other packs they are related too !!!!!I can’t help but think they are confused, we take pictures of them,so they adjust to us,then bam people are shooting at them.This is tragic, I do not care what anybody thinks, we as human beings get money from tourist, I am one,then we have a hunt for money to kill them, wow I am so proud of our society!!!!!!!!
October 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM
To Carl and Wendy thanks !!!!!!
October 10, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I guess what you say could be true, but I haven’t heard of the Yellowstone Park wolves acting any differently right now than last year at this time.
October 10, 2009 at 4:19 PM
How many tags were used to kill off the Cottonwood pack?Was it one hunter..few hunters?
October 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM
It would seem that 302 was just being 302. He is well known for his wandering, but this time instead of going off on his own, his pack came along, and quite a walkabout it was. Moving back and forth across pack boundaries eventually brought the Blacktails into conflict with other wolves. Interpack conflict and death is well documented in the park. It is what wolves do and 302 went out as he should. I too have followed him over time and will miss knowing that he is there.
The Cottonwoods are a different matter. The northernmost wolves in the park have often traveled outside of the park. This has been documented and is not new news. Montana should have used this information as part of its plan, and modified the plan appropriately with a buffer which would have had no real impact on the overall hunt. The deaths and loss of this pack did not need to happen. As former Slough pack wolves, 527 & 716 had been to this area before in their travels. As a former hunter, I do not see waiting near the park boundary for your chance at a wolf as fair chase hunting. Another pack will eventually occupy this part of the park, and when they do, they too will likely be shot unless a buffer exists.
Over the last ten years that I have visited Yellowstone, much of my time has been spent on the northern range. I have spent thousands of dollars in Montana, outside of the park. The wolves brought me and thousands of others there. It is justifiable for me to believe that Montana does not need to expose the park wolves to the hunt. What is gained by having no buffer?
October 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM
If they did it legal, they would have had to had a tag for each wolf killed in a legal hunting zone, if you buy a tag, if get to kill one animal…and there is no indications of illegal activity in that zone..
October 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM
People have to come to grips here, there are legal hunting seasons going on in Montana and Idaho, you need to have a tag in your possession to kill a wolf, you cannot share tags, and you have to be the one killing the wolf..
Malloy ruled against the injunction and hence there is a legal hunting season..I don’t know what the future will bring, but I do know what is going on right now, and other than the dip in Idaho, nothing has been corroborated illegal..
October 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I was just wondering because there is not much detail how the pack got killed. they (wolves) travelled together, I assume. How many tags ..hunters..were sitting and waiting…I understand hunting is legal. I just worry about how many wolves can get killed for ONE tag..one reported kill and how many not reported for the same tag..
October 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Could happen…there are a lot of turds running around out there with guns posing as hunters. Unfortunately, its a small proportion of wildlife violators that get caught and prosecuted.
October 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM
One wolf, one tag, that is the law…come on, these are big game animals! There has not been any accusations of improper hunting…If you have a tag, you can kill one animal..If you worried, I can tell you for a fact….One animal can be killed for each tag issue up to the quota, period, there is not flexibility, there will only be 75 wolves legally killed in Montana by hunters….
October 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
SB, what she’s implying is that a person or group of hunters see wolves, they shoot, kill several, and just tag the one they decide to keep. Not that they’re checking multiple wolves under 1 tag.
October 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM
There are hunters and then there are criminals, Period!! Lets get that clear, if don’t have a tag, issued by the state, then you are a criminal if you kill a wolf! Also, if your in a closed area and kill a wolf, you are a criminal, why is that so hard to understand? Hunters are not criminals and criminals are not hunters!
October 10, 2009 at 4:48 PM
That is Illegal, if you don’t have a tag, you don’t take the shot, the only person that can take the shoot legally is the person who’s name is on the tag…! Why is that so hard to understand? There is NO group hunting for any big game animal in Idaho and Montana…Jay, in your example, then they would all be in violation of law!
October 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Semantics–call them what you want, but people in the field looking to kill deer, elk, wolves, whatever, are hunters up to the point that they break the law–PERIOD!!!. If you don’t think there are going to be illegal activities, than you need to go talk to your local game warden and ask about big game violations.
October 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM
No sheet it’s illegal, but it happens. You said you worked for MT FWP, surely you talked with your wardens about all the law breaking that goes on during the hunting season. What she was asking wasn’t “is it legal to party hunt wolves?”–obviously it’s not–she was wondering in her post what the frequency will be of people taking more than one wolf and only tagging 1.
October 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I have worked in the field, I know exactly what happens out there, it is not semantics, it is TRUTH, Hunters don’t kill animals illegally! Period, end of story, no need to talk about it!
Criminals Kill illegally! There are illegal activities every year in every single state that has hunting, but they are done by poachers, not HUNTERS!!! There is no grey area here, there is a big difference between a hunter and a poacher! I am so sad to see, that people who don’t really know about this subject continue to lop them into the same group, that is a piss poor way to talk about our fellow man, I have been HUNTING for 40 years and have NEVER done anything illegal, and have made the call many times on those who do…..
October 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
NO IT IS NOT LEGAL TO PARTY HUNT WOLVES! PERIOD END OF STORY, I know exactly what she was asking..
October 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Jeezus, you are difficult. Its not a question of “if I poach, can I still be called a hunter?” Why can’t you get that? She was wondering what the rate of party hunting will be. Stop, think, and reflect for a minute…
And you’re wrong, accidents happen–I know some very respectable folks that have violated wildlife laws–purely out of dumb-luck circumstances– that turned themselves in. They are not criminals, it is not so black and white as you say it is.
October 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM
99.5% of Hunters don’t break the law, but unfortunately the only ones we hear about are those that do! Sensationalism abounds, but the majority of hunters don’t break the law, I have experienced this first hand…if we were to actually look at it, there is less law breaking in the hunting field than any other field in the country…what I mean, have you ever been a speeder? Have you ever lied on your tax returns? Have you ever forgot to pay for something, Hunters are for the most part, honest people, and this BS is getting old, tiring and damn right maddening!
October 10, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Yes, it is black and white, because people like you like to grab it and run with it, there is no excuse for mistakes, when you have a lethal weapon in your hands.
I am not difficult, I am an asshole, and for her question, no, there is NO legal party hunting of wolves in Montana and Idaho, why can’t you get that through you thick skull, it is illegal, it is not allowed and you can be convicted of breaking the law if you do, on any big game animal!
October 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Wow, you’ve got an amazing grasp of the obvious. Hear ye, hear ye, save bears proclaims that party hunting is illegal.
You are an asshole, thanks for saying it. You should’ve talked with the wardens you worked with to hear about all the wildlife violations that go on year after year. but you were probably to busy belittling them with your superior attitude to bother actually talking to them.
October 10, 2009 at 5:10 PM
SB logic–poaching doesn’t occur, because its illegal.
October 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I didn’t say, poaching doesn’t occur, I said poaching is illegal, and after being a hunter for over 40 years, I will continue to be of the belief, that if you make a mistake, your a criminal, the anti-hunting establishment has brought it to this and hunter can’t make mistakes…
When it comes to wildlife violations, it is black and white, so you know what you can do with your attitude…
October 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
As far as talking with wardens, I visit with them quite often, in fact Tim Manley had dinner at my home last week, and we discussed the issues that face hunters now a days, I talk to a lot of wardens all the time, despite the problems I had with the agency as a whole, I am very good friends with many who still work for the agenecy..
October 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Who cares make it 50!!! P.S. Thanks Ralph I jumped at a conclusion!!!!
October 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Richie, the rules are established. If you successfully establish a fifty mile buffer zone, you wont be happy untill you get an other fifty if wolves killed are close to your new safety zone. When in doubt change the rules.
October 10, 2009 at 5:49 PM
This is an honest question.
What specific law would someone be breaking if they gut-shot a wolf, or shot to break a leg, and it got away (most likely to die)? None that I know of.
I don’t know if it’s happening or not, but given the wolf hatred that we know exists, what would stop any real wolf-hater from this? It would be a very hard crime- if it’s a crime at all- to prove “Damn, that’s the tenth wolf that done got away this season! Rifle muse be shootin’ cockeyed.”
There are people out there- and we know they exist- who want all wolves dead. You really think they’ll be satisfied with blowing away just one wolf when they can kill as many as they want?
Anyone know if Ron Gillette cashed in his tag yet?
October 10, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I apologize, I can see we have far differing views on things…
October 10, 2009 at 5:51 PM
What stops somebody from gut shooting a deer and elk a bear, a cougar…?
October 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM
In my area of patrol, Thorofare, I’d say between 80 and 90% of the time all those elk shot (300 in a 25 mile boundary) on the line each year had two bullets coming at them…..hopefully the first by the dude, but then always the second by the guide. I was forever hearing this quick succession, boom, boom. I guess we should lock all those 600 hunters, guides and outfitters up, criminals to the core, everyone one of them. Bad boy, bad boy…shot someone elses elk.
But then, of course, we wouldn’t have all that money being raised in the form of donated outfitter hunts to such a worthy cause, the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation…at their yearly convention auction, if we called them criminals instead of outfitters, would we? Such noble people, every man a heroe truly men of with the Right Stuff.
October 10, 2009 at 5:55 PM
That is kind of my point. I don’t think that there is anything stopping someone from doing it. However, few people hate deer or elk with a passion and want to go out and kill as many as they can. Most people who shoot at a deer are going to be disappointed or even horrified in they wound it and it gets away. I don’t think the same is true with some people and wolves.
October 10, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Have we lost all faith in humans?
I sure hope not…I still believe the majority do the right thing..
October 10, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Bob with your verbose way of posting, I have pretty much started to disregard most of what you say, you and I have a completely different way of viewing things…
October 10, 2009 at 6:19 PM
In my line of work (NPS) I had to make a conscious decision early on …. become apathetic, and bitter like most retired with…or find some humor in it. The first meant being serious all the time and end up seeing the shrink and forever being on Prozac like 80% of my peers were doing in the 80’s …and after….or take myself one step away from it all and look back from a different perspective.
I suggest bantering back with a bit of humor sometime. I think I can take it . If not I guess there is always those mind altering drugs.
October 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Bob – your comments are among best on this blog. Thank you. As to the person calling itself “save bears”, the alias appears to be a misnomer. This thread has gotten far away from Kathy’s sincere and informative post at the top of this thread. I suggest that pro-wolf folks, connect on some other form of communication, so that we are not constantly trying to justify our wolf support to save bears, Layton, Ryan, et al. This blog is continually hijacked too much by anti-wolfers.
October 10, 2009 at 6:55 PM
To be real I will not be happy until the buffer zone is in Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Thank you Lynne its a real pleasure to see a person who loves animals and respects wildlife !!!!! and to all of you who do Heather,Chris, Ralph,Dave and all I do not know but have the pleasure to share my thoughts. I took my dogs in my arms all day !!! and my cat !!!!!!!
October 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
No, I have not lost all faith in humanity. But it only takes a few monsters to do irreparable harm- and they are out there. I am not enough of a Pollyanna to believe they are not.
October 10, 2009 at 7:22 PM
In answer to your question if it could be proved that this were occuring the individual could be ticketed for Wanton Waste in most states. I would assume Idaho and Montana have this law also but since I am not from their I am not positive.
October 10, 2009 at 7:43 PM
“I suggest that pro-wolf folks, connect on some other form of communication, so that we are not constantly trying to justify our wolf support to save bears, Layton, Ryan, et al. This blog is continually hijacked too much by anti-wolfers.”
How about trying smoke signals or the telegraph?? They were both pretty popular methods of communication when this magical period of wolves-a-plenty was going on.
Seriously, would you really like to just sing to the choir?? I don’t think so — you get tooooo riled up to be content just talking to other “wolfies” and “green necks”. Loosen your hat just a little, have a micro-brew, relax, it’s called a discussion, not a gun fight!! 8)
October 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM
i am soooo sad to hear about cassanovas death, me and my husband watched the yellowstone special on pbs about the wolves and cass stole our heart! we just made a trip to yellowstone this past june and saw 302,it was amazing and i know his spirit lives on!!!! he will be missed! i absolutly HATE the wolf hunts…cant get started on that.. we will miss you 302!
October 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM
SaveBears..my question was simple: how many possible wolves can you kill having ONE tag..legally ONE tag..you still report ONE wolf but in reality…is anyone tracking hunters? no..they report what they want and not want and YES..there will be more wolves killed than reported…
Long term effects from the hunt will be bad. Less wolves means less genetic diversity…they will all start calling each other a cousin…just like in same states…inbreeding is not good.
October 10, 2009 at 10:18 PM
It’s really pretty easy to figure out: ANYBODY can kill whatever and how many they want, at least what they think they can get away with — but if they want to be legal they can only kill one.
People can kill however many elk they want to and figure they can get away with — same deal — BUT ONLY ONE IS LEGAL!! Fairly simple concept.
Is anyone tracking hunters — YES!! The same way ALL hunters are “tracked”. There are game wardens and undercover cops out there all the time.
NOTHING IS DIFFERENT!!
October 10, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Izabelam, sorry if I spoke out of turn for you.
SB, I don’t think our views are too far off, but you’re obviously very opinionated on the subject of poaching-hunting-etc. Nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject, but you clearly were not understanding what I was saying (and reiterating what I thought Iza was trying to get across)–that is, there are those out there that will commit the kind of crimes being mentioned. I don’t think it’s out of line to post a question on this blog as to what the rate of illegal killing will be during this hunt…knowing game wardens, you’re well aware that very few violators get caught, and a lot more sh!t happens in the backcountry than what gets into the newspapers.
October 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Hate to burst your bubble Layton, but in the 30 years of fall patrol I can’t think of a single time where a game warden ever patrolled off the trail in Thorofare country.
No, I wasn’t tagging along but I met up with these guys a lot of times and we would discuss what we did. It was always to the camps or riding around Bridger Lake for them. Their excuse….didn’t want to wreck any hunting or scare any game away.
I admit my duties meant a different emphasis but wouldn’t you think they would at least have some curiosity as to what was in a cave above the valley or what was up a certain drainage? And all those outfitter paths to hunting areas. Wouldn’t it be nice to know where the routes were so you could patrol on these hunters?
Of course the forest service guys were the same way. If they only had gotten off the beaten path they could have seen all the illegal chain sawing in their ness areas…like right behind their cabin, but FS couldn’t ever seem to know how to get beyond the down timber entrances to these trails. (ll the outfitters had hidden approaches to their private trails systems).
Wolf hunting is taken place off the trails…in the meadows and on the ridges. There are no game wardens to see what is happening. and as far as undercover it ain’t happening.
The USF&W couldn’t even get it together to do so on an outfitter known tobe lacing meat with poison for griz around his camp. Nor the outfitter who was known for killing up to 3-4 griz in camp per year. There isn’t the money and the feds already are swamped with the paper work from too many cases.
Dream on Layton.
October 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM
What would make you believe I am anti wolf? I a pro hunting person, that wants to see it done legally, I hunt and so I am going to support hunting, I don’t want to see wolves illegally killed and I don’t hate wolves, but don’t don’t believe this hunt will do harm to the population as a whole. Wildlife management is for the whole, not the individual animal.
I am against poaching, and get tired of people classifying poachers and hunters as one in the same, I have been a hunter for the majority of my life, and recognize there are those who will do what they think that can get a way with, but maintain, the majority do follow the rules.
I guess, because, I have no flexibility in me as to breaking the law, I am labeled anti-wolf.
Again, as I posted above, the answer to the question is LEGALLY only one wolf, can be killed by a lawful tag holder, group hunting is illegal and anyone that practices it is acting in an unlawful manner
October 10, 2009 at 11:26 PM
No Bob, you aren’t bursting any bubbles of mine.
Guess what, there isn’t much wolf hunting going on “on the thorofare, and I really don’t much give a rip what it was like “on the thorofare” when you were there 30 or 40 years ago. Times they are a changing.
Just a point that I KNOW – first hand – recently, not “on the thorofare” because I work for the forest service – as recently as 1 month ago.
These down timber entrances to the trails don’t stop the forest service LEOs these days. Maybe “down on the thorofare” it was different, but, because I have “saw card” I spent a bit of time clearing some of them. And I can assure you that today, in the woods, not “down on the thorofare” most everybody that works for the FS knows EXACTLY where the chain saws are going.
“Wolf hunting is taken place off the trails…in the meadows and on the ridges. There are no game wardens to see what is happening. and as far as undercover it ain’t happening”
Don’t know where in wonderland you are talking about, but I think you better stick to buffalo ranching, cuz you aren’t very savvy about how it works today.
October 10, 2009 at 11:56 PM
If you know where the chain saws are going…and I assume you and I are both talking wilderness areas here, then why are the chain saws still there to see and hear?
October 11, 2009 at 4:33 AM
This topic is very heated and I try to tread lightly…
I am the daughter of 4th generation ranchers. I love Montana and all its rural, beautiful landscape has to offer.
I love horses, I love my lambs….and I love the wolves.
It takes my breath away to see them, it hurts me to know that some of them are going to be destroyed this hunting season.
However, it also devastated me to lose 8 sheep in a two week period to our local pack. My family also lost one of our working dogs, an even steeper blow. Now, part of ranching is life and death…but with that death also goes money down the drain. I am a student at U of M…and I have had to take out extra student loan money to offset the loss of our livestock.
Wolf kills must be reported within 72 hours…when livestock are scattered across long ranges sometimes this is difficult. That was the case with this second attack. 3 sheep, @ 200 apiece…is 600 I will not get back. The guidelines from the state are strict on timelines and “professionals” assessing the situation for wolf kill. This was probably the pack teaching pups to hunt, hence the multiple kills.
Now…not all wolves attack livestock. And just because you see a wolf does not mean he will bother your animals. But when he does there is not much recourse but to eliminate him or relocate him…and relocating him costs $$. Also, reimbursement costs money and the budget is woefully inadequate to meet big sky country’s needs. I recommend we put more money into the livestock mitigation fund.
I am a hunter, a rancher and an environmentalist. I know that the wolves have a right to be here and that all of nature is healthier because of it…but I also have the right to live off the land and protect my own creatures.
Ranchers and farmers must also come to the half way point. Poaching is irresponsible and illegal. Hunting something that has not harmed you or your own animals directly is inexcusable.
I realize that ranchers must also educate themselves and practice responsible land management. Both sides are guilty of injustice.
I could not, myself, pick up a gun and hunt a wolf like I do elk or antelope. I could protect my livestock in the case of imminent attack, and have done so. These are different things.
I propose that we set the name calling aside and work together on this issue. Money for live stock loss, for education, for relocation…and yes, limited, controlled hunting. It is a neccesary evil. However, management does not = annihilation. Just as re-introduction does not =wolf takes over and is left on the protected list unquestioned.
Life is a balance, nature created it this way. We are part of the balance. Let us work together to save as many wolves, as many livestock, as much money as possible to reinvest in the land so we may all have a place at the table together.
October 11, 2009 at 8:21 AM
I like to comment on two points and hope to get to the point across quick !!! Did anybody up their watch animal planet a show they had called Bear Haven, a retired school teacher in Alaska who took care of bears,black and grizzly. He got injured once when a bear bit him for play. After that he would hit the bear in his mounth to say stop, the bear learned. O.K., what happened the media found out filmed him and the government shut his place down. What I am saying is the biologist and wolf introduction people mean well but your findings are given to the hunters and used against the wolves and bears alike to track and hunt them down, their’s your research, and I know you mean well. I think it is amazing that nobody has figued this out yet!!!!!! I say no collars, anyway GPS could work better !!!!! I had internet in the slue creek area, also one more point. Gardner is a small poor town and depends on revenue from Yellowstone tourist dollars. Now the in the area people must be laughing at the tourist, for they can hunt the wolves and bears that Yellowstone tells all people these are our greatest treasures. They sell t-shirts,post cards,coffie cups, pictures that cost a pretty penny. Their is a guide from New Jersey who takes people out on a caravan to see wolves and bears for a good buck. He is even in a Yellowstone film, now your two states are having hunts. Isn’t that a slap in the face for all of us who just wanted to see a little part of wild nature a part of our souls, what would Muir think.I do not hunt,but do not hate hunters, who hunt for food that is reality, but to hunt for just the sake of trophies, sorry can’t buy it, these animals have souls too. Look we have bow hunting in my local park,and deer are know to run from a hit and suffer until they bleed to death, wow I guess I will take football, go Giants !!!!!!!!!! p.s. you see I did not like to see unneeded suffering to anything period !!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 8:36 AM
Hannah so sorry about your sheep and your dog,that must hur deeply, don’t get angry we me help me along!!!! Are you grazing on public lands that is my first question ? Instead of all these dogs to protect the sheep, this might sound crazy , but what about electric fencing all around the perimeter , I know their must be a way to protect your livestock !!!!! The fence would be costly but with transmitters it is an idea, or sound waves to keep the wolves out this might work!!! But I disagree the wolves should be protected for people do have a built in hatred for them, sorry I disagree on the protection part !!!!
October 11, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Richie, there was another guy that cavorted with the bears similar to the guy you mention…he’s dead now, they carried what was left of his carcass (what the bears hadn’t eaten) out in a small garbage bag. If the guy in AK was only endangering himself, I’d say go at it, but habituating bears to people more often than not means that both die. What’s your point bringing him up?
October 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM
To Jay !!
Watch the film before you talk,and I know about the guy who died. The guy who got killed was around bears for a long time,what he did was provoke an old dying bear looking for food the bear just wanted to die in peace,the bear was the last bear to be in the lake , I could tell you the full story. Their is an island in Canada where bears and wolves and people live together and this is a fact !!!!Now go watch bear haven and then come back and talk to me. besides the retired school teacher was a hunter too !!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I’ve watched it. Provoked the bear? Really? Were you there to witness? Where is this Utupian island in canada where bears and wolves and people frolic and cavort in peace and harmony?
October 11, 2009 at 9:13 AM
To Jay P.S. He was the only one around in the fall he got out of their by plane, the film crew came in by plane.The point is when you open up to a whole lot of people what you find, the only ones to get hurt are the wildlife I explained that several times !!!!!! Ok yes their were some fights between the grizzly and black bears they chased each other!!!!!! Did you ever see the one about a guy who built his own cabin in Alaska he also got in by plane !!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Are you saying you condone what the guy at bear haven is doing? I have watched the show many times and he is doing humans as well as the bears and injustice…
October 11, 2009 at 9:16 AM
He wasn’t the only on in there is the problem–some hunters came in, which means others could get in and out of the area too. Acclimating wildlife to people is a bad idea–if you’re pro-wildlife, than you shold know that a bear that doesn’t fear humans is easier to kill when it comes up for a treat versus one that runs for the hills. Which option do you think is better for the bear?
October 11, 2009 at 9:19 AM
To Jay :
They don’t frolic banana they just live to gether they go their seperate ways I have this on tape somewhere this was a long time ago!!!! Bear haven, the point is they lived together, the teacher did have one problem. The bears would wake up so early, so he had to sleep in the living room and he had to make reinforced doors, yes they were very strong. But when they came into his house,they did not come to kill him oooohhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:23 AM
There are lots of places in Idaho where people live amongst bears, lions, wolves, etc. That’s not unique to Canada.
So still waiting for an answer to whether you’d prefer a bear that walks up to a hunter for a treat and gets shot, or retains its natural fear and runs?
October 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Actually he had quite a few problems, he ended up surrounding his home with electric fences to keep them off the poaches and damaging the house, the bears actually injured the guy that was filming for Nat Geo, they bit him on quite a few occasions. He was not just living with bears he was making pets out of them, anytime someone habituates wild animals to humans, they are creating a dangerous situation..
October 11, 2009 at 9:31 AM
To save bears :::
I do not agree with you, like many people on this blog!!!!
He was alone, I do not know his intentions,but I do know he should have kept it to himself he would have been better off, he could have lived that way for a long time. Now nobody has commented on the research to track wolves that I believe hunters use to track these animals and all the dollars tourism brings in to a state for wolves and bears that has less than a million people. Also a state that has Barkus holding up the public option because he has taken 1.8 million dollars from medical industry, a republican in sheeps colthing>>>>> Do not get me wrong I love Montana but like the lady said this is for wolf people and wildlife people in general!!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:33 AM
To Jay ;
Then keep the hunters must they control the whole world.I still like the idea of what he was trying to show !!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Like I said keep the hunters out of certain area’s is this idea new to you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM
I will be happy to send you a copy of the episode that clearly shows the wrongs that were being done, which is why the government stepped it, it is not only illegal to habituate wildlife to humans, it is dangerous, when I worked for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 90% of the problems people had with wildlife was because they had been habituated to humans in some manner, whether by design or by accident, and normally the wildlife lost.
Hunters are not legally privy to the information from tracking collars and I don’t know of any biologists that are providing information to enable the hunters to find wolves easier….
Barkus IS a republican and he is on his way out, after his boating accident in August, he is currently charged with three felonies that if convicted, could put him in jail for up to 30 years as well as cost him tens of thousands of dollars in fines…
October 11, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Richie as far as you believing me, that still does not changes the facts.
October 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM
To save bears:
Do you really want to save bears it does not sound like it!!
WE must have watched a different film yes he did get bit by one bear and hit the bear on the mounth every time he tried it !!!
and yes I like this idea I want to be in harmony with nature we are on different sides!!!! Has anybody ever thought of making a model for how many wolves and bears Yellowstone could sustained. A real model with variables many wolves died of disease this is a natural selection, I know you do not believe in this!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
You mentioned the people in Gardiner are hunting bears, are you saying they are hunting Grizzly Bears? Because if you are, you are wrong, there is no legal hunting season in the lower 48 for Grizzly bears, now if your talking about black bears, there has been a hunting season in Montana for black bear for decades…
October 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM
as I have stated, I am pro hunting, and I want it done legally.
I have been involved in many different types of modeling and I know there have been modeling studies done to show what sustainable numbers can be maintained in Yellowstone. I also know that there are not sustainable numbers to allow any hunting of grizzly bears around Yellowstone and I don’t want to see a hunting season for grizzly bears.
Understanding the dynamics of wildlife management needs to be based on science and not emotion, it is obvious you have an emotional reason for your beliefs..
October 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Facts are we watched a different film I taped it too no need to send it, I watched it several times and being to hunters not getting info from research is not that a public record come on man I do not believe,they do not get that info remember public record as for Barkus is not his first name Max!!! Is not a different guy anyway he is a sellout period !!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Save bears: No Gardner I do not know what the people do but Gardner is in Montana correct so can’t they hunt wolves correct and many takes jobs as guides for the Yellowstone park , tell me I am wrong !!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM
To save bears thank God for small favors now include wolves in that and we both could watch football in peace today !!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM
No, you have it wrong, it is Greg Barkus, who is a state legislator in the state of Montana, Denny Rehburg is the states representative to Washington DC. who has held up health care reform, Max Bacus is the Congressman who has been working on health reform, he is a democrat, Rehburg and Barkus are republicans. Max Bacus, has in fact been working on health care reform for quite a few years now, what everybody is mad about, is Bacus, didn’t include a public option in his health care plan.
Tracking Collar information is not Public Information, hence it is not available to the public for use to locate wolves easier…
An no, we watch the same show, I just happen to seen it in a different perspective than you did.
October 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Richie, just a friendly suggestion to make your comments easier to follow for us readers: your posts are like a thought explosion…keep it focused to a single point (or two), and ease up on the exclamation points!!!!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Richie I was just wondering, you mentioned bears in the statement about Gardiner..but there is no Grizzly Bear Hunting legally going on..
I don’t watch football. And the wolves that were killed were in fact legally killed in an open hunting area in the state of Montana, which is separate from the park and again, tracking collar information is not public information…
I am a hunter, but I am not hunting for wolves as I don’t hunt for anything I don’t eat..and that includes bears, I don’t hunt bears either..although I have had bear meat, which prepared properly is quite tasty..
October 11, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I don’t know how many guides for the park reside in Gardiner, I do know you have to have a permit issued by the park service to legally guide people for money in the park, of course Park influence in Gardiner is very large as it is a gateway town and the conventioneers as well as one of the foundations have their headquarters in Gardiner..so the economy in Gardiner depends in a large part on the park.
October 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I said Max Barkus and he is a senator not a congressman, and yes he is against the pulbic option because he has taken 1.8 million from the health care industry, and yes we do see things different and I still believe NRA has the power to know the findings of the bio people and WILL look into more in depth !!!
October 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
TO Jay :::
Will do your suggestions are well taken I DO HAVE A FOCUS PROBLEM FOUR DOGS MANY TREES AND A GREAT DEAL OF LEAVES TO BLOW OUT INTO THE STREET AND Point IS WELL TAKEN Jay ! Will try thanks !
October 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
There is NO senator name Max Barkus from the state of Montana, his name is Max Bacus, Barkus is a state representative…I should know, I was a Montana state resident who voted in elections in the state for several years….When I worked for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks as a biologist…
What does the NRA have to do with the hunting of wolves in the state of Montana, the NRA focuses on gun rights issue and not hunting issues..
October 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I hope you don’t take it as criticism, you have some interesting things to say, just hard to follow some times.
October 11, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Sorry I spelled his name wrong, it is Max Baucus…
October 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM
To save Bears:
I do not critize you for hunting that is your right I am just against wolf and bear hunting in New Jersey,New York, anywhere this is just me. And I am gald to hear you hunt for food !!!! O.K. Cool,But Yellowstone or our country should not promote tourism on one hand and kill the same animal on the other hand. Their is a contradiction here man,and about models it would help, you need environmental engineers in on this, plus communication engineers on this collar thing. I still do not believe that hunters do not know what the bio people know but I will follow up on this before commenting further on this subject!
October 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Yellowstone is a park and no hunting is legally allowed, Montana is a state that has the right to set their own guidelines as does any other state, the states base on the constitution of the United States are suppose to have sovereignty to run their own state although at times, it does not seem that way. Because there is a National Park, located a small bit in Montana, does not give them the right to tell the state what to do, unless the animal is on the Endangered species list, which currently wolves in Montana and Idaho are not, even the judge that ruled on the request for injunction didn’t not think there would be harm done from allowing the wolf hunt..
If I remember correctly, it is illegal to track wolves in the park, based on their collaring frequencies unless you are actually involved in the wolf project, and I know for a fact that the state of Montana is not providing those frequencies to the general public, and with the advent of GPS collaring, it takes more sophisticated equipment to track them
October 11, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Save Bears……”the NRA focuses on gun issues, not hunting issues”??? WHAT???
Not only do they get involved in hunting issues, but they also get involved in trapping issues.
Please explain this text taken from their website about hunting, because I must be missing something.
October 11, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I said they focus, in other words, their main goal is to continue to make sure US citizens that are legally allowed to own guns can.. I didn’t say, they don’t get involved in hunting issues, but I said, it is not their main focus, of course, hunting will be in their agenda as in most cases it involves guns and taken in context of what was being discuss, I don’t believe the NRA is handing out tracking information for wolves to hunters.
And just to be clear, I am not a member of that organization, because I don’t agree with many of their lobbying efforts and agendas..
October 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Save Bears…..I see where you’re coming from. It’s difficult to distinguish sometimes because of all the BS propaganda I receive from them weekly that has to do with hunting.
Actually, I am a member even though I don’t agree with much of their lobbying efforts or agendas. But that’s a long story.
October 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM
The only point I was actually trying to make, is that providing tracking information to hunters would be a very low on the totem pole for an organization like NRA.
Anyway, I think I have said enough on this issue, I have been accused of being anti wolf, anti bear, etc. Which is far from the truth.
Just to set the record straight, I am 100% for a balanced ecosystem, I am against public land ranching, and I am for ranchers taking a more active role in protecting their investment, I am pro hunting, when done legally and I have no patience for those who don’t practice fair chase or ethical hunting methods, I am against hunting from ATV’s even though I use an ATV to get to hunting areas on approved trails. due to a disability, but walk as far as I can from there, I am against predator status for animals that allow mass destruction with no oversight, I think wildlife services should be controlled far more than it is. I am PRO wildlife and wild areas and against landing helicopters in wilderness areas!
I hope that clears it up a bit, and I am sorry, the thread that was posted, got so far off track from Kathie’s original intent!
October 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM
To save bears;
O.k. so I spelled the name wrong and yes he is a senator just elected last term thought it would help with sixty votes but he is A sellout I do not wish to repeat myself ! And as for Gardner do not take money from tourism they have a hunt that is nonsense!
October 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
No Jay that is good It helps me in the long run !!!
again thanks Jay really
October 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM
To Save bears;
Then do not promote bears and wolves to the general public do not take money for this period,end of story !!!
Now I know about comminications I am an engineer I and C engineer, so go for it update the communications. I will look into the bio track thing, I do know their is no hunting in Yellowstone.
October 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Max Baucus was first elected to the US senate, in 1978 and is the 7th longest serving Senator in the country…he wasn’t just elected last term, he has won every election for Montana Senators since the late 70’s, you don’t need to repeat yourself, but you need to get your facts straight…sorry if I am annoying you, but some of the things you are saying is far from fact…
October 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM
TO Jerry B ;
Thanks I thought I was alone !!!!
October 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
The park service, can’t tell the state what to do with its hunting seasons. You may be a engineer, but I am a biologist that actually worked in the Gardiner area for a few years for the state of Montana, and I can tell you for a fact, we were not allowed to hand out tracking information to the general public, as with poachers, who are criminals, I am sure there might be some who violate their rules, and I know for a fact, a smart hunter might know enough about communications to figure it out on their own, but it is not being handed out!
If Gardiner is promoting wolves and bears, they are promoting the wolves and bears in the park, and I would suspect it would be those who actually provide tours, and not Gardiner itself..
October 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM
To save bears :
I still think this was a premature hunt we just disagree, but I knew this day was comming,I still can’t see using animals for money from tourism then shoot them makes no sense to me !!!! Who wins in this not the bears or the wolves, but the people who get money from tourist then they get money from the hunters,sometimes I wish I was an Indian,Nez Perce actually , low land Nez Perze Wallowa valley!!!
October 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM
And I guess, the best way to get Gardiner to not take money from tourists is don’t be a tourist that visits Gardiner, because I don’t know of any business owner that is going to turn down your dollar, you simply have a choice, if you don’t like the policies of the states that Yellowstone resides in, then don’t visit them..because unless the wolf goes back on the list, which is a possibility, the states of Montana and Idaho now have wolf management in their hands, for good or bad..
October 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Then he won this term as a democrat correct for our sixty votes and he is in the finance committe correct and he has taken 1.8 million from health care correct!!!
October 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM
To save bears;
One more time you should not take money from tourism they take money from hunters period and update your communications !!! we lose as people you do not see this !!!! ETHICS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS !!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM
The hunting of black bears is not new, it has been going on for decades, there is no hunting season for Grizzly bears and I hope there never is, other than a few misinformed people, I don’t know that the promotion of grizzly hunting is going on, grizzlies were almost lost forever in the lower 48, black bears are very prolific and have never been endangered. I didn’t say it was time and I didn’t say it was premature to hunt wolves, I said, right now it is legal and the park service cannot tell Montana or Idaho how to manage them…after the hunts are over, the data, will be interpreted, of course if the Judge re-lists them, then that changes things, and it will keep going around and around, but if the judge does re-list, it will be based on the using of political lines and not based on harm done to the wolf population as a whole, the judge has already said, he didn’t think hunting would cause harm to the population as a whole…
October 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM
He has always been a democrat, he didn’t just win this election as a democrat, but blaming him only is also wrong as John Tester another democrat from the state of Montana keeps going back and forth on the public option.
Now of course none of this has to do with wolf hunting, if we want to gripe about health care, it should be in another thread.
Your ethics are involved in this, understand, other have different ethics, wrong or right, there are different and very strong views on this issue, I am sorry if my views do not agree with your views, I look at it from a scientific standpoint, you look at it from an emotional standpoint.
Anyway, have a great day.
October 11, 2009 at 1:47 PM
That’s the problem which you will not comment on,first I know about grizzly and lower forty-eight yea yea. But lets close Yellowstone and see how it hurts the state,second I will not repeat but what is going is wrong period. Obama had the kid Kennedy in the running for sec. of interior, he would have made your heads spin!!! This a joke!!!!
October 11, 2009 at 1:50 PM
And science said many have said too earlyfor a hunt ,earth justice NRDC ,DEFENDERS ETC, put that in your pipe and smoke !!!
October 11, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Your to darn emotional…
actually I would like to see the park closed for about 5 years, to readjust things and get things back on track, I don’t think you would find it that debilitating to the states that surround it
It is very difficult to follow your postings as your English is not that great and you logic bounces around quite a bit…
What Problem won’t I comment on? I am confused, there is no legal hunting of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area, and I hope there never is..so what is the problem I won’t comment on??? Please explain?
There however been many biologists that approved of the science behind the hunt, Earth Justice, NRDC, Defenders are not scientific groups they are activists groups, and I am not saying they are wrong, but please understand, they are activists, not scientists to begin with..
lets get back to logic and science, lets put the emotion away for a while…not that I think you will, but I will ask?
October 11, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Just as a last thoght from me for today: thank you.
October 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM
T o save bears ;
Yes I am emotional but I do not agree with you, I love wildlife I think you take it for granted, I could talk with you on the subject, I been picking up stray dogs my whole life. I do not mind telling you about me, can’t say the same for most people. But their are people, “experts” on both sides who think this is right or wrong. So do not tell me research shows their needs to be a HUNT common man get real. O.K. LET ME SAY THIS you need to fly in to hunt can’t walk much, nothing wrong with that. Now I seen this hazing thing, a baby buffalo had a broken leg,should they get a wheel chair or take the infant and help it some how. You can’t treat animals like things, race cars are made for that, not living breathing things. You still do not see everything has a soul, too bad you don’t get it, you live in a wonderful place.
October 11, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Not sure what the thanks are for Iza, but whatever it was, you’re welcome.
October 11, 2009 at 5:47 PM
I never said research show that there is a need for the hunt, and I never said, I have to fly into any hunt, I have fought for equatable hunts for many years now, lost my job with MFWP, because I would not doctor studies and modeling reports…as far a souls and such, I will have to leave that to you and I don’t believe in organized and human defined religion..
You are really an interesting person to talk to, I will give you that, but I think the time has come to disengage with you, as I can’t follow the logic you are trying to put forth..
Good luck in your quest, I do hope you find something that makes you happy, as far as me, I will continue to fight for equatable hunting rights, conservation and science based wildlife management.
October 11, 2009 at 5:51 PM
By the way, Richie,
I don’t agree with you either, so I guess we are pretty much on equal ground, the difference is, I live in this area and deal with it on a daily basis, and obviously you don’t…
October 11, 2009 at 6:59 PM
I like what you said. I DO.
We need to work together. I wonder how many ranchers think like you? One..tow..Ihope you sleep well and are nto afraid that some of the ranchers may not like you w\for what you belive and try to fight for..I HOPE.. youa re spreading the good word.
I am a dreamer and I hope we all will live in peace and get along….wolves and people…
October 11, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Hannah, it is nice to see ranchers that have your sentiment. Very refreshing.
October 11, 2009 at 8:20 PM
So Defenders Of Wilflife and other Wolf adovacate groups are involved with this , but the law is the law and the hunt goes on, and packs will be taking out, it sucks but it is going to happen . Ranching is still a huge part of Washington but is a dying breed here in Wyoming. Wolves are a smart animal and will hopefully adapt this time to our hunts . Control I hate that word ! Gotta tell ya I do . Every author I have read on wildlife said control is not a word to use, just doesn’t work, we can try but then everything becomes a zoo . Do you want your National Parks to become a zoo ? I don’t .
October 12, 2009 at 7:08 AM
TO SAVE BEARS:
so you deal with this every day so what, on this blog most people do not like the hunt that’s it end of story, you my friend take what you have for granted !!!!!!!!!
October 12, 2009 at 7:16 AM
To save bears;
Bears,wolves, etc are living things just like us,they have distinct personalities we see things very different !!! p.s. I have things that make me happy mountains, the ocean, my dogs, my relationship, my muscle car, football,drag racing,wolves,bears etc. I love animals period. Life is beautiful except when man gets in the way of a beautiful thing,like shooting wolves.
October 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I have asked President Obama what does he want to leave as a legacy to his grandchildren..zoos? I asked him to step up and protect the majestic animals of America: bison, wolves, polar bears….got no answer….sad..
We, people need to spread the news and educate those who don’t know.
I have a problem with some of my friends: they love going to YSNP and watch animals and want to see the wolves and bears but they do nothing to help and support the animals to survive, to stop hunts and keep the ESA strong.
I think they view me as crazy ….
October 12, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Your not crazy your a good person. You did the right by calling the washinton line I should do that next !!!! Thanks for reminding me !!!!!!! we need all the people we can get on our side.
October 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM
People have to be more pro-active, and look forward in as many ways as possible. I refuse to break horses the way I grew up watching “good ol’ boys” break them and I refuse to shoot a wolf who is minding his own business just because he is a wolf.
However, I would never give up ranching, even with a gun to my head. Just like the wolf, I am here to stay. Forever. I am getting an advanced degree in Business and have an undergraduate degree in environmental sciences and agricultural management.
As far as electric fencing…it is awesome idea. As long as there is power to keep it running where your livestock is pastured. This is not always the case, but it is installed on our land where we can power it. (Also works great for horses to).
Sometimes with fencing, it can create issues. Because wolves (or domestic dogs, or mountain lions) can get into your fencing but your livestock cannot get out. This sometimes makes them easier targets. (And some livestock is not the brightest….come on…we bred them stupid…)
A neighbor of mine lost a calf because it got tangled in the fence and was an easier target that way. So pros/cons to both.
Most of my livestock is on private land that is a lot of extended family. (My mother comes from a family of 7). However, some of my livestock have grazed on public lands as that is common in this state.
All 3 wolf attacks we have had in the last few years have been on private land. Same for most of my neighbors.
Bobcats are also offenders….and often way worse then wolves have ever been or will be in attacking livestock so next time someone complains about wolves and livestock remind them big cats and coyotes are worse. And do not forget about the domestic dog….which is the number one reason we have guard dogs and llamas.
As a rancher, I consider Bambi to be the biggest nuisance. And I’m glad the wolves eat him regularly so he stays out of my raspberry bushes.
I do contribute financially to organizations that support the wolves, educate people whenever I can about “ranching myths” and proactively take part in voting and political actions that support leadership and accountability.
My friends in Missoula are convinced they will make a warm and fuzzy (if gun toting) liberal out of me yet…that remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, life goes on and the more we work towards understanding one another…the more we may find we have in common rather then difference.
October 13, 2009 at 2:34 AM
To Hannah ::
Thank you for answering some questions I had ,you are a very educated person. I guess their is no D.C. component to these electric fences, a recarging d.c. voltage for a longer life span. I know their is no one answer to this problem, you have a big challange on your hands.
October 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Hannah, What a great post.
“life goes on and the more we work towards understanding one another…the more we may find we have in common rather then difference.
Yes, and we here on this site need to brainstorm what can we do to help both sites to live happily…
Jumping to each other faces does not help the big issue. Wolves need to live and howl free….
After all, I am a dreamer.
October 13, 2009 at 7:26 AM
To do not have to be warm and fuzzy to be a liberal just be open to live with wildlife while doing what is right for your ranch.
October 13, 2009 at 7:35 AM
One other thing high frequency sound waves radiating outward maybe that is another idea. When I was in Yellowstone I brought a fog horn,what boats use. I live by the ocean easy to buy , but never had to use the horn in Yellowstone.
October 13, 2009 at 7:52 AM
It is a pleasure to read your posts, Hannah.
October 13, 2009 at 8:08 AM
….or you can go back to sheeps roots for help, Hanna. Give them the defenses they evolved with.
1) Raise them in families so the roles and the males are there to protect and defend. it will take three to four generations of blood related linage to achieve this.
2) KEEP natures numbers of males on hand (in and outside the fences) so as to be the scouts and guards to warn the matriarchal components on the interior of the fences.
3) Construct minature mountains for them….and places they can defend. You don’t have to live in the highest cliffs and alpine areas either. Sheep were all along the cliffs of Billings and a lot of sheep were seen by frontiersmen well away from any protection (this is where the scouts and guards came in).
Take what a wolf needs to be successful and minimize this. One wolf can scale most anything a sheep can but once they get there the flock negates him. And for a pack to be successful they need SPACE. Take that space away and all those original sheep traits of flocking together allows for small areas of protection. your mt.(s) does not have to be that big.
And I wouldn’t say domestic sheep are that dumb either. Breeding out instinct takes a lot longer than you think. It is just that we took all the normal props away from them. Think of why your domestic sheep follow one another so closely and you have origins knowledge. Use this when you construct defenses for them.
All this means you have to have a different market for your sheep than industry dictates now. Ag business is a market of age and sex division. Yours would be a flock(s) of cohesion and extended family. Of course once you put in their “forts” everything else is a lot more effecient than all that college ag “management’ all college ag students were brain washed with. You will have management intensive grazing without fences, no need to creep feed and your more mature animals will not taste like mutton either….because they don’t have chronic stress being built up in them every day (because they are being raised outside family groupings).
The biggest obstacle I see to this is for you decide whether being part of the traditional sheep and ranching community is more important than your supposed belief in “good” wolves, bob cats coyotes and dragons. You talk of ranching with fondness. Maybe this is your biggest deterent to figuring out systems for sheep…or cattle coexisting with predators. I hope not. Your choice.
October 13, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I know this is out there in left field, and I know we’re all in a hurry, but folks, can’t we please try to write with correct grammar and spelling? Some folks get alienated when they encounter poor spelling and grammar, and stop hearing what we’re trying to say. We can’t afford to alienate anyone.
More importantly, the NYT had a tiny article today stating that Montana wildlife commissioners are suspending hunting along the northern border of Yellowstone, as there has been “heavily concentrated killing” in that area, including the breeding female of Yellowstone’s Cottonwood Pack (as Kathie Lynch mentioned earlier). It would be great if the Times had put this article on the front page, but at least it’s in the paper.
October 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM
There is going to be a segment on the wolf hunt tonight (Tues, 10/13) on Dan Rather Reports on HDNET for those of you that get this channel.
October 13, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Thats funny. The only thing sheep are good at is dieing (heard that from an ex sheep rancher) 10,000 years of domestication can’t be undone in 3 generations. I know of a ranch in Eastern Oregon where they put some of those fancy sheep on it for lazy ass hunters. Anyways I was a part of the effort to get it banned a few years back and for the last 10 years there has been almost no human take on this herd. (they have cliffs and mountains on the ranch) and guess what. The coyotes and Cats have pretty much wiped out a herd that peaked around 250 head. Not that its a bad thing as I hate domestic and feral sheep.
October 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM
To Hannah and Mgulo,
Thank you both for your comments, very respectfully and I did learn alot ! I always found it crazy that humans have a love hate relationship with the wolf .
October 13, 2009 at 7:20 PM
To Hannah and Mgulo,
Gotta tell ya loved your comments and learned from them . Always found it interesting how humans have such a love hate relationship with the wolf . I can’t afford to donate money to organzations that support wolves but I do email petitions to my senators on the issue . Gotta tell ya hate the word harvest too ! Sorry about the other quote computer has mind of it’s own . Oh Hannah love the Bambi remark .
October 13, 2009 at 7:45 PM
You are a lot more aware of what goes on in neglected ranch lands…whether it is with the wildlife or domestic livestock….than you showed with your post on the Oregon exotic sheep herd.
The “red necks” and those without jobs take advantage of any resource they can. I know of no herd of anything, whether Iowa or out west, that when left by absentee owners and sort of abandoned that didn’t have the leaches coming out of the mud, pronto.
The alternate scenario was, whomever the ranch manager left to “watch” the place made as much as he could.
In your eaxample I’d say either the infrastructure of the herd was never allowed to develop (poachers and opportunists)…..and predators took further advantage of this dysfunction …..or red necks did it all and diverted blame from what they did to “predators”.
And I don’t think it matters whether it is domestic sheep, cattle, horses, pigs or humans, all divert back very soon….and all are very good at defending themselves…if allowed to structure up.
By the way, Ryan, how would you define a “wild” to a “tame” Indian. Around the trading posts in the early 1800’s the traders and soldiers said the tame Indians stayed around the fort and the wild ones stayed away. Now the question asks, If the wild ones found religon but still preferred to live away from whites are they then just half wild? And how long in civilized life is one assured they won’t “go native” (wild) again?
October 13, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Just a thought…..be careful with the mentioning of race and references to native people.
Some of them read this site….and it is easy to alienate them by using inappropriate cultural references.
Many of them also happen to be some of your biggest pro-wolf supporters.
As for “traditional” ranching…i’m not sure there is such a thing anymore. Tradition in the sense of family and love of land and working your buns off? certainly. The idea that taking care of the land and it takes care of you? yes, that’s there to.
But the idea of being a rancher and pro-wolf is not traditional….not one bit.
I won’t sacrifice one thing I love for another. I believe in a middle road of co-existence.
If you do not want to alienate people…be very careful of insulting/attacking without massive provacation (i.e. hunting right next to yellowstone which I find offensive and inappropriate)….once you shut down someone the lines of communication close…and nothing is accomplished.
With ranchers you get further with honey then vinegar…
they are the landed nobility, the holders of public policy, and the tax payers of Montana. Many resent what the feel is an “intrusion” from outsiders.
Now, this whole intrusion business is a bit bratty, and if they weren’t being bullies The Man wouldn’t be stepping in.
However, choose your words carefully because they will be remembered down the road. This is a place of constructive dialogue and education.
You want it to be a school yard use personal e-mail.
Just a suggestion from a Montana girl who has grown up watching how this system works. If you want to get the “landed nobility” (as some have referred to us) out of the judge’s back pocket, you will get a lot further with mature diplomacy.
Calling me a wolf hating, slow witted red neck amuses me.
But it cuts you off from other people. Important people. People with influence over your cause.
Contrary to popular belief, Montana is not a republican state. Most of us are independent swing voters and cannot be predictable at any time. However, courtesy goes a long way toward ingratiating others to your cause.
This is a highly sensitive, temper flaring issue.
You will get more respect and be taken more seriously in the long run by being genuine, honest, and calm.
Reactionary, emotional, high strung, clueless, tree hugging and extreme is what most Montana ranchers think of environmentalists. Therefore, they can disregard them and not take them seriously.
And the cycle repeats itself.
I am a rancher and a wolf advocate who is on this forum…not because I do not have endless things to do as a graduate student and a rancher….but because bringing the two sides together to communicate and understand one another is important.
The hunt on the Yellowstone boundary was deliberate. It was a way of people who feel powerless to target the other side that they perceive made them “powerless.” The knew what they were doing by targeting that specific pack. It was a national statement.
They knew it would upset people. They knew it would hurt.
Its sick. Its unjust. Do not play into that trap.
As a president once said: “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Those who love the wolves should heed that advice. That big stick is the legal system, the soft voice should be words of diplomacy.
Otherwise we are all neanderthal rednecks….and it isn’t going to save anything we love. On either side.
October 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Very well said Hannah…
October 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM
It seemed time for some sort of statement. I got to visit with PETA today on campus and it was a very frustrating experience.
October 13, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Been there done that, I know exactly what you are saying!
October 13, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Ryan you know its a losing battle with Bob, he talks of things only he believes.. Discredits all biologists and fed/state wildlife workers and preaches his own “family” doctrine of how animals co-habitate.. Anything he cant answer he uses conspiracy theories to try and discredit them, hence his reasons the sheep herd you talked about died. Unkown people blamed them on “predators” and stuff like that. It is pretty comical though.
October 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM
When I grow up I want to be a conspiracy theorist!
My conspiracy is that maybe people have more in common then they like to admit…..
October 13, 2009 at 10:49 PM
“As a rancher, I consider Bambi to be the biggest nuisance. And I’m glad the wolves eat him regularly so he stays out of my raspberry bushes.”
Hey, can you send a truckload of those Bambis out to our Washington property? The lazy critters here won’t touch the &*&(* blackberries I so dearly want to eliminate; they want to munch on all our fruit trees and my newly-planted Western red cedars instead.
October 14, 2009 at 12:32 AM
In reference to natives, wild, savage and tame I see no wrong when the same words are in some pretty scholarly books as an example of past thought. And if it relates to the prejudices of today then more power to it. Prejudices are put out there for all to see in the movies. Take the last Tarantino “Inglourious Basterds” movie. He used every strereo type he could think of…from cabbage patches to aloof Britans.
Plus, if one has closer relations as compared to no association to whatever the ethnic group the more one can make reference to them with respect.
I co present at the likes of the American Bison Society and International Bison Conferences with a Pine Ridge South Dakota legislator Indian. I am on the Chicago Brookfield Zoos bison advisory comittee, being the only non Indian on this advisory (chosen by some of the Western tribes for this postion) and have twice been asked to give major presentations to the 50 tribe Intertribal Bison Cooperative at their annual meetings in Santa Fe and Denver. At the Santa Fe one I was the only “whiteman” out of 400 present (do you know what Indians call those white folks who forever come up to them and say they have a little Indian blood in them? (This is what the LA Indian comedian asked of the crowd at the banquet). Everyone in unison (except me who didn’t have a clue) said “Genarekee, Generekee!!
I work with the different Indian colleges in writing grants for bison studies in Yellowstone, interviewed and produced a film clip with members of different tribes for further bison studies at 4 year land grant universities. I am asked to present at different tribal colleges such as Sitting Bull and am soon to speak at Ft Belknap. The American Prairie Foundation has asked me to head up their Indian school education program in Montana (which I declined because of the hypocricy for teaching of bison that are dysfunctional) and last year I planned the tribal bison hunt for a public bison herd in the NW territories (families will be hunting families of bison not individuals hunting individuals as before).
Yes, I know what prejudice is and I think I can defend just about anything brought up against Native Indigenous peoples, past and present.
October 14, 2009 at 5:57 AM
I believe this is politics as usual, Barack had the kid Kennedy in the race for secretary of inerior,how Salazar got it “who knows”. But I do know he walked out with a cowboy hat when being introduced by Barack as his pick for secretary of interior, and I thought we were in trouble. If Robert F. Kennedy was picked,he is a person who is pro environment.He has a radio show with a lawyer Mike Papantonio “ring of fire” on Saturday afternoon. So their had to be a reason for the president to pick a rancher,maybe he needed some power for health care being Max Baucus runs the finance committee. I do not have an answer, but I know Barack was not thinking for the wilderness of the west.
October 14, 2009 at 9:16 AM
There not on neglegated ranch land, the herd lives within a mile of the ranch house at the end of a private 3 mile gated road. What ever you want to believe is fine with me, I would bet all the coffee in seattle that in three generations you couldn’t make a herd of domestic sheep that are “smart” enough to avoid predation.
October 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM
WTF are you talking about with indians?
October 14, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Hannah……..if you ever run out of things to do, and that sounds doubtful, please consider seeking an appointment to the State Game Commission. A voice such as yours is sorely needed.
October 14, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Read Hannas comment on one needing to be careful when talking of indians. She was referring to my comment earlier of “wild”, “tame” and “half wild”.
As for “three generations” this is how long it would take to establish roles. As for defense it would be like a new country starting up its military….functional but not infrastructurally there yet. There would have to be several ram groups of mature ages plus the younger scout and guard rams in place to make a flock effective against predators.
This is what the early whiteman encountered flocks had when it was noted how far these sheep were from any physical land protection. A matriarchal sheep flock on the open prairies, whether bighorn or domestic, is no match for a wolf pack. Thus sentries and protection by male groupings.
Why invest in guard dogs or llamas when those of own kind can do it for the rancher. But to do it right it would take 15-20 years for domestic…or newly formed up Bighorn flocks to have the necessary infrastructure in place to ward off coyotes and wolves.
October 14, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Bighorn sheep don’t die when they run, domestic sheep do in many cases (espicially if for long periods of time). Hence why a few generations won’t do shit to create a herd of “smart” land maggots. Also a bighorn can flat move across rough terrain, the standard white maggot can’t.
October 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Evidently you have never been around those midwest diversified farm sheep flocks. Our family used to raise sheep for many years…..until our main ram broke my moms leg. My brother even earned grand champ honors at the county fair with his Suffolk.
You see, even in one or two generations the rams learn to protect…if you leave them in with the ewe flock year round. Most western flocks are segregated so there is not breeding going on “out of season”. Too many chances of disaster if lambs are born in bad weather…plus it takes a lot more labor if the flock is out in big public lands.
This ram learned first with our farm dogs how to protect the ewes during lambing. The dogs would get chased out pronto while any lambs were young. One time my mom went in to feed them and while there went to pick up a lamb in the mud. Bang, out of no where and she has to crawl out of that yard.
Add in a well infrastructured ram group or two and you have defenses against coyotes. Add to this younger scout and sentry males and you have wolf alert. Ryan, I think your obvious prejudices against sheep makes you underestimate their abilities. Just watch so you don’t get blind sided, I say. you are very vulnerable to having this happen.
October 14, 2009 at 7:27 PM
You rock Girl that is all I have to say Oh thank you
October 14, 2009 at 10:21 PM
It is so hard to hear about The Casanova. He died on the same day as my grandmother. It has been a very hard week, and now hearing about this has made it harder. I know they both lived a long and healthy life, and 302 will never be forgotten. Nor will my Grandmother. I WILL MISS YOU BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!
October 15, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I’ve had my fair share of getting head butted by a sheep. Butting a human and butting a pack of coyotes or a pack of wolves is a completely different thing. Didn’t like a 100 rams get killed by wolves not to long ago?
October 15, 2009 at 12:58 PM
It appears you are going to have to get out of the farmer rubber boot game with those sheep. Did you ever consider the rams were just trying to protect the ewes.
As for 100 rams dieing I guess it would be like taking 100 people off the street and calling them a football team. Then put this “team” up against an eleven man college team that is fighting with motivivation…and you see the diference.
October 15, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I think I may have some of the last photos of 302m. I took them on 10/03/09 but I’m not sure if he was one of the two blacks. How can I verify this? I was traveling out Blacktail and paralleled the pack (5 wolves) for 3 or 4 miles.
October 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Accusing me of fucking sheep… Classy that’ll make your point way more valid.
October 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Hey guys forget the sheep and the kid was found in the balloon,so let me say, did anybody read the center for biological diversity the new e-mail. Did anybody know that the center filed a lawsiuit against the hunt, a person from the NRA said he had an encounter with a pack of wolves. He threw snowballs at them as they ran away. I realize this is only a small bit of the story but it is well worth reading.
October 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM
There is only one thing to say ; The mighty dollar is lord over all life. This oh so special government we have allows much more than this to happen, especially in the Bureau of Land Management. There is so much that we don’t even know, if we did, there would never be peace in the souls of us that truley care about the other species we share this Earth with.
Let us just prey that the spirits of these animals are in a place of peace and tranquility. They were a small part of what makes this terrible world we live in, ……..beautiful.
October 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM
The only solace that I am finding is in some of the posts here. Thank you. I feel devastated. This won’t stop until we eliminate all predators. Why do so many people feel so separate and fearful of the natural world?
October 16, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I am distraught by all of this! I have been priviledged to have had a close encounter with these incredible animals when in Yellowstone in the winter . It was one of the best moments in my life and I will never forget it. This is outrageous!! The Gov’t spent milliions putting the wolf back into the wild and watching them all these years. And now, the government (again) is paying people with OUR tax dollars to shoot them all dead! What a waste! No wonder the gov’t is broke. And what about the pups of the Cottonwood pack…??? Do we just stand by and let them starve to death?? They are just babies!!!
For 8 long years I filled out petition after petition and wrote letter after letter protesting Bush’s lack of concern for the environment and animals…And, now I find myself doing the same thing all over again…I voted for Obama because I believed that these policies would change for the better…but nothing has changed..We are still fighting the same fight….I don’t know much about Ken Salazer except that he is , in my opinion ,doing a very poor job. Perhaps Obama should have appointed someone else for that position.
And last, I looked on the Yellowstone NP website under wolves and it states that the wolf population has actually dropped by something like 27% since 2000. I’m not a statistics person…but , if that is true, then why are they shooting them dead!!!!!???? Thankyou…
October 16, 2009 at 4:19 PM
May I ask the Pro-hunt People: If a company offered you a reward of $100.00, $300.00, or even thousands (depending upon how good you get;) per photo…just a photo! of a Wolf, would you take them up on that offer?
If not, can you please explain why? (Including if the reason is the money.)
Imagine, stalking the Wolves, getting them in your ‘site’, but clicking a shutter instead of pulling a trigger. It’s not as exciting the first click, but then you realize the Wolf isn’t dead, and you can click again, and again, shooting him over and over, it becomes obsessive!!!!! Different angles and lighting situations give you more opportunities to shoot the Wolf, all the while, making mad money from all your excellent photos! Die Wolf Die! Or, I mean, Live Wolf, live because I make money off you every day!! Would you do it?
If I set up a program tomorrow (hypothetical, I can’t or else I would)…and you trade your wolf tag or gun for a nice free camera, and a guaranteed future for your family…would you do it?
Please answer honestly and respectfully, thank you:)
Does anyone know a publishing company that would sponsor this type of project? (Hunters being eager to make the change to becoming wealthy photographers and outdoorspeople).
As you read this string of comments, it becomes clear that Wolves, like every other animal (sometimes even Humans), have become at risk simply from the desire for money or wealth, and a pure loss of respect.
There is a solution, if not the one above, something has to happen and quickly. Localized education, a new Secretary of the Interior (who didn’t used to be a Rancher…not saying that Ranchers are bad people, there’s just other professions, like ‘fine lettuce growing’ that can make you tons of money and actually HELP the earth we all share). (We all have to admit the massive waste and consumption cow production requires), something…
Possible Solutions: Isn’t there a way to fairly distribute the Wolf tickets to lovers and hunters? Or…is there a way to pay hunters to “shoot” photos of the Wolves in exchange for a reward? What about Wolf enthusiasts pay the hunters to show them the Wolves, like hunting tourism sans the bullet and plus a lot of good laughs and morals? Can’t we allllll (including the Wolves, who shy from humans naturally) just get along, please?
How can both parties work together to stop the animosity, lack of understanding, and finger-pointing to preserve both, people’s jobs and livlihoods, and the thing we miss the most… respect for things that have developed for millions of years and can never be replaced…and each other.
October 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM
I am heartsick over the loss of these beautiful, intelligent creatures.
October 16, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Emily: I like your post very much.
“Hunters being eager to make the change to becoming wealthy photographers and outdoorspeople).”
But I don’t see this happening… why would hunters make a change, just for money? the folks that are shooting wolves run the gammit… because they want to kill them out of hatred, and frustration or they kill them because they may be a popular guy back home. they kill them because they can. and then there is fish and wildlife dept. …It is the killing they want, not necessarily money, although such a small price (wolf tag) to pay such a beautiful animal.
October 16, 2009 at 6:25 PM
*grammatical error in the last sentence -insert *to kill* such a beautiful animal.
October 16, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I think it is about time we got ride of some of these worthless animals, It makes me sick to see these wolf kill deer, and elk and whatever else. I could only hope maybe one of you are out in the woods and get attacked
October 16, 2009 at 9:36 PM
People kill wolves for the same reason that they abuse power. Because they can. From the day this country was settled, the domiannt culture’s idea was to kill and destroy. Kill the animals, cut down the forests, Kill the Indians. Kill anything wild and beautiful and “other,” and then claim it is our god-given right. The hunt may well be illegal (as well as immoral and unethical), but what good will that do? Will it bring the wolves back?
Does anyone know if Defenders of Wildlife (or any other group) can feed the wolf cubs? Unless of course, they ahve already been poisoned or clubbed to death by the manly and virile hunters.
I hope and trust that there is a god sympathetic to wolves and the Shrub and Salazar and all the wolf haters and killers get their just deserts.
October 16, 2009 at 9:49 PM
worthless Ray? And what makes them worthless, please fill me in.
October 16, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Your wish will not come true. Oddly enough the only people who report fearsome encounters with wolves are people who hate them.
Why do you support this is? It’s because their stories are made up, or these people interpret normal wolf behavior as something dangerous because they are unfamiliar with wolf behavior.
I hope in time you will not be such a hater, and come to understand that the wolf is like any other wild animal, just trying to make it way in the world.
October 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM
Sickening news, really. It makes me angry and sad that Montana officials have no clue how to reserve wildlife, only how to destroy it. Poor buggers.
October 17, 2009 at 5:00 AM
It is Gwénaelle !
I am so sad and so angry about wolves from Yellowstone …The cottonwoodpack was the first pack I saw when I arrived in July …I am on Facebook and share all informations about hunt.Doug is very kind with me because he give me news since I left Yellowstone …
Kisses from me and my family …Here is my e-mail, give me your adress andd I send you photos about you, Rick and Saska… firstname.lastname@example.org
October 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM
This is probably a dumb question, but is it possible to mark the wolves that belong in the park? Like with a tag, or collar or something so that the ‘hunters’ can see it and not kill it?
October 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I cannot believe that this is occuring in 2009.
Probably like many of you (those of you who are legit and adult, not the few uneducated fray ‘contributing’ to this post), I have been signing petitions trying to stop this in vain. It’s heartbreaking, and makes one feel powerless. Obama must have known about this – this concerns national legal policy. I checked out whitehouse.gov the moment they changed the guard and changed the website. The only “environmental” concerns on the “energy & environment” pages concerned energy policy. NOTHING about species protection or animals or the environment in the purist sense. Clearly, a grown man in his late 40s just finally getting a dog to appease his daughters is not really an “animal person”. But then again the B’s had dogs, so perhaps it doesn’t matter or translate for some people.
How do those of us who consider ourselves stewards of the earth get to be just that? Where is our say, our power?
Why is it that the ‘unevolved’ always end up ‘ruling the planet’? Didn’t they take basic elementary school literature? (Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Himself)
I guess humanity is always split amongst these stages, and we’ll never get everyone out of the middle phase.
While I’d like to think I’m in the latter stage, the utter HATRED for humans that this evokes very likely throws me back to square one…
I hope the wolves know that some of us are not ‘evil’, for lack of a better word. But then we all still let them down in terms of failure to protect them. We need to get that power back.
October 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM
REAL MEN ARE NOT AFRAID OF WOLVES! RAY…Looks like you are afraid…
October 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Ray…it makes you sick the Wolves kill Deer and Elk…as they have done for thousands, if not millions of years (subspecies)? What do you think of yourself then? Do you eat meat? You might make someone else sick.
Please stop coming here if you have nothing good to say. Wolves kill sickly and weak animals, making herds stronger and more apt to complete harsh winters. Humans kill the strong ones (think 30pt. Buck), making the herds weaker and weaker every year. No wonder you want them gone, wouldn’t hunters just love it if they could just sit and shoot at lazy, sick Elk and Deer. Wouldn’t that be great? Wolves hunt without malice, it seems you people (people who harass others on sites trying to help our environment, which is WHAT WE LIVE IN!!!), hunt not only with malice, but ignorance and spite as well. I’m sorry for you, I wish you’d see the other side and give us the respect we’re giving you. We do not threaten you, please stop threatening us.
Oh, and I do hope I run into a Wolf in the woods…because they don’t like humans! Naturally they want nothing to do with us and now I completely understand why.
You make me very sad. Please don’t comment something about how good it makes you feel to hear that, because deep down somewhere you must be a very hurtful and angry person. I feel amazing everyday because helping things (that DESERVE help) makes me feel good. Please just consider that, that’s all I ask.
October 17, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I think it is about time we got ride of some of these worthless animals, It makes me sick to see these wolf kill deer, and elk and whatever else. I could only hope maybe one of you are out in the woods and get attacked
Wolves are predators and that is what predators do. Are they killing YOUR elk and deer? As far as any of us getting attacked, we are more likely to be in an accident on our way to the woods than get attacked by a wolf.
October 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM
I just found a beautiful- and now achingly sad- essay on wolf 527F, otherwise known as “Bolt”-
October 18, 2009 at 8:27 AM
I found that wolf hunting show in Idaho,can anybody answer a question? On the show Miss. Stone named the number of coyotes to be a great dael larger than the wolves. Wolves were brought here to get the numbers of the other animals under control. So how with so few wolves is this going to be accomplished ? Why did nobody collar a coyote? Why is it the wolf that draws all the attention? Big cats, wild dogs,coyotes kill more than wolves, why always people fear the wolf ? I believe it is embedded in our culture, from Europe, where ever our fathers came from, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, England etc. Lokk Little
October 18, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Hit the wrong button sorry also deal spelled wrong ,I will leave with Little Red Riding Hood,the big bad wolf,and the full moon the wolf, “The Black Forest”, Dracula by Bram Stoker had wolves following the carriage. Lets get over this born fear of wolves,we need educated people. I guess I’ll stop here do not want to offend anybody .
October 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Please stop coming here if you have nothing good to say. Wolves kill sickly and weak animals, making herds stronger and more apt to complete harsh winters. Humans kill the strong ones (think 30pt. Buck), making the herds weaker and weaker every year. No wonder you want them gone, wouldn’t hunters just love it if they could just sit and shoot at lazy, sick Elk and Deer. It seems to me if a hunter is fortunate enough to shoot a thirty point buck that it has lived long enough to pass those significant genes on. Is this a flawed thought?
October 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
30 point buck??
Now that would be one hell of a deer!!
October 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM
It’d be a flawed point if thing like Mammoths, billions of Bison, days of Passenger Pigeons, and hundreds of species per day (yes, literally, especially considering we only know an estimated 1/3 of the irreplaceable life on this planet), were eradicated directly by humans.
“Now that would be a hell of a deer!!” Shows how jaded we’ve become and perfectly displays my ‘flawed’ point (or as I see it, a different perspective than yours). There used to be 30 point bucks and now people would pay to see it, and probably kill it, it’s simply unbelievable to some that a Buck like that could be around, well, it’s not anymore. Just like the Mammoths humans hunted to extinction, the Tasmanian Wolf, the Dodo Bird, etc….so no, the thought is definitely not flawed, it’s the increase in people, lack of regulation/proper stewardship, and greed that is.
October 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Also to Bambi: Please read carefully before you respond to comments, especially if the answer is above your question Bambi: “It seems to me if a hunter is fortunate enough to shoot a thirty point buck that it has lived long enough to pass those significant genes on. Is this a flawed thought?” And the reason to read carefully, two sentences above your question…:”Humans kill the strong ones (think 30pt. Buck), making the herds weaker and weaker every year.” i.e. once the 30 pt. Buck is gone, it’s gone…and can no longer pass on the genes we both covet…thus, ‘making the herd weaker every year’, thus the very reason there are now more 30 point Bucks, thus ending this discussion.
Now, could we please try to focus on a way to help preserve wildlife we obviously both cherish (even if in different ways)? Please? Thank you.
October 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM
sorry, “no” more 30 point Bucks, not “now more”…
October 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Richard, part of my educational quest to become a biologist, included genetics as well as history of animals and their traits, a 30 point buck was an oddity in the past, just as much as it is now…
October 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM
uh, ok, please forget the 30 point Buck…it’s a song and I’m sorry I even mentioned it. Please just listen to my point (is that when we kill a strong animal, we eliminate the ability for it to pass on the genes). Please you guys, hear my point rather than nit picking, I’m trying to help both of our futures, not just my own.
Thank you for helping end this discussion and help focus on the Wolves…for instance, would Emily’s idea work? Give a hunter a camera and $ for each photo…if not that, what else? 🙂
October 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Although it’s educational and enjoyable to read,
I’m not sure that , other than self satisfaction, it does much good to rant about these idiotic policies to “the choir”.
I think it would be helpful to send your comments to the people involved in making these decisions.
Here they are:
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Commission(5 members): email@example.com (this goes to all members)
Montana Wolf Management Director, Caroline Sime: firstname.lastname@example.org
Director of Mont. Fish Wildlife and Parks, Joe Maurier: email@example.com
I suggest that you request a response to any questions you have and, if willing, post them here.
October 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I dont hunt with malice, when I do hunt I try to kill the deer or elk that I am after with one well placed shot. I prefer to hunt for older animals as they are usually larger and I get more bang for the buck! I live where there are larger deer and elk that are never seen by humans and to say that hunters are responsible for creating weak herds is simply rediculous.
October 18, 2009 at 11:33 AM
I love the idea of trading guns for cameras, but, like ‘gline’ implied, it seems hopeless. What would make them want to do it?…because honestly…I could see my Hunter uncle scoffing at the idea. What would entice someone to be less violent, more open-minded, and/or conscious of compassion?
Then again, what would make them not want to do it though? I have to say, being a cubicle worker, I’d take Emily’s offer in an instant. Where do I sign up? I used to kill Spiders!! (Not anymore, they are escorted outside;) Can I trade my fly swat for a camera and a trip to a safe no-hunting, animal-filled location to photograph for you, and I can spend my tainted cubicle money on touring the area while shooting and earning green money? Seriously, should this be tried? I’d love to hear a pro-hunting perspective on it…
October 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM
The notion that hunting animals with larger antler sizes hurts the genetics of the herd is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
Here is a reply that I have already posted on this blog, but it still pertains to this conversation:
Areas in states that have been managed for “Trophy” or “Large Antler Size” have been extremely successful in the past decades. Look at the areas such as the Paunsaguant, Kaibab, Book Cliffs, Monroe, Dutton, Fish Lake, or Manti in Utah, or Little Mountain, Pine Mountain, Greys River, or the Hoback in Wyoming. These areas have not only continually produced increased numbers of “Trophy” animals but almost every year the size of these animals have been getting larger. Management style, nutrition, and water have way more to do with antler size than hunters eliminating a few choice animals during hunting season.
Another fact that Anti’s always leave out in regards to “Trophy” hunting is the fact that an animal has the exact same genetics when they are young with small antlers as they do when they have matured and their antlers have grown large. Someone who has killed a small bull such as a spike, may have just killed the largest antlered elk that mankind may have ever seen but we will never know. Also male ungulates have most likely passed on their genes many times before they have ever reached antler maturity. Dominant males are not the only ones passing along their genes during breeding season. While the dominant male is defending their position many females end up being impregnated by younger males. Anyone who has spent any amount of time with Elk and Mule Deer during rutting season has seen this fact first hand.
October 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Bambi, you contradicted yourself “you live where they’re seldom seen’ and they’re ‘unusually larger’.
October 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Sorry to interrupt but does anyone know where Rob Edward, Carnivore Conservation Coordinator, WildEarth Guardians went? He apparently left WildEarth end of September. Thanks.
October 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
And regarding some comments and ideas (in this thread or elsewhere) there is no such thing as a ‘problem wolf.’
Therein is where the ‘problem’ lies.
The ‘problem’ is enticing them with what they think is a ‘free meal.’
October 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Wyo Native: Did you read my ‘forget about the 30 point buck comment’? I hope yours was awaiting moderation while mine was being posted, otherwise you seem like a baiter (someone who goes to sites like these to throw people off the subject, divide people, and cause upheaval for the sole point of not allowing progress). Please forget I ever said anything about a 30 point Buck, my point has been lost and trampled, but yet I fully read, respect, and understand your point, and much of it is valid. “I’m wrong, you’re right”, now can we move on? This blog post doesn’t seem to be made for the point of arguing. It seems to have been created so we could all work together to find a workable solution. Do you have any (positive) input? I like the camera idea too. What do you want to see happen? (that has not already been said or repasted).
October 18, 2009 at 12:16 PM
the entire country should mourn the loss of these wolves, as they were important to not only the eco system but our knowledge base as well 😦 A very sad news story
October 18, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I tend agree with mr. Ganson, attacking others with false notions is not going to accomplish positive wildlife issues. Stop the emotional outcry and think with brains rather than hearts IMO.
October 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM
No my comment was not in moderation, nor was it in reference to your 30 point buck comment. It was reference to your statement:
“Please just listen to my point (is that when we kill a strong animal, we eliminate the ability for it to pass on the genes).”
You are right though, this blog should be a place to work towards a solution, but lately it has became a haven for the extremists.
Hunters ARE NOT a threat to the wolf population, but rather Wildlife Services and the ranching interests that they work for.
There are more Wolves, Coyotes, Raccoons, Skunks, etc, killed every by the government than by the hands of hunters.
Since reintroduction there have been over 1000 wolves killed by our government agencies. Maybe we should force the government to carry cameras rather than guns?
October 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Mr. Strong, finding larger male animals during a hunting season is not as easy as you might think, but after the season i have ventured into wintering areas and seen quite a few trophy animals with a spotting scope. There is no contradiction.
October 18, 2009 at 12:53 PM
We should stop the Government from killing, you’re right! Wildlife Services is severely misusing their position, 1,000 Wolves! Thank you for this information! Now, how to sneak cameras into their lockers 😉 (Seriously, how could that be stopped?) Especially if it would allow the Hunters a less controversial hunt and the supporters a little relief that the only Wolves killed this season are those issued to people rather than agencies! Thank you for this information, I appreciate it. It definitely brings more complication to an already complicated subject, but it also opens a new door.
October 18, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Sue, they WERE tagged…that is part of what makes this so particularly awful. They killed them anyway, as soon as they ventured outside of the boundary.
PBS’ nature has done a number of specials on the Yellowstone wolves. While this one features the Druid pack, they do feature Casanova (from our unfortunate Cottonwood pack), who was courting a Druid female.
Chris, thanks for posting the Bolt link. I remember her as well. All of the famous packs are being wiped out, after SO MUCH work went into buiding them up.
“They know not what they do…..”
October 18, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Has everyone (who wishes to) signed the Defenders of Wildlife petition(s)?
October 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM
“I used to kill Spiders!! (Not anymore, they are escorted outside;) Can I trade my fly swat for a camera and a trip to a safe no-hunting, animal-filled location to photograph for you, and I can spend my tainted cubicle money on touring the area while shooting and earning green money? Seriously, should this be tried? I’d love to hear a pro-hunting perspective on it…
I just have to ask — does “escorting the spiders outside” contribute to stronger genetics among the spider herd? 8)
As for a “pro-hunting perspective” — I’ll give that a try.
First and (to me) most obvious is the fact that a picture of a deer or an elk wouldn’t taste nearly as good as the other result of a good shot.
No, before you say it, I wouldn’t eat a wolf, but if I do get one this winter — I have a tag and hope to fill it — the pelt on the wall will be better reminder of the occasion that some piece of paper with an image on it.
Sorry, to put it quite simply, I feel that I am a “predator” too. Wolves are competition. I don’t spend time trying to deny it. Some folks that post here try to make the whole wolf hunt thing into a revenge or fear thing — it isn’t.
October 18, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Predators don’t hunt for the thrill of it and wolves have no predators upon reaching adulthood.
“Wolves are competition”
Incredibly flawed logic and that does take your little thrill ride into the ‘revenge’ category.
October 18, 2009 at 4:10 PM
It is only flawed in your opinion…it is amazing, being in the center, how many flawed logic arguments I see on each side of this issue. And there in resides the problem, both sides think they are right!
October 18, 2009 at 4:46 PM
I could have an opinion that the world is flat, but does that mean the world is flat?
October 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Layton, I think that a lot of people are participating in the wolf hunt as revenge. The anti-wolf sentiment that is expressed in the Northern Rockies is probably plenty of proof that some people at least are hunting wolves for revenge because they are seeing them as competitors.
October 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM
No it doesn’t, but it does not stop you from having that opinion, now does it. Opinions, do not need to be based in fact, it is simply what someone believes..
October 18, 2009 at 7:26 PM
To Save Bears ;
This Website is for people who love wolves so do not try ro be so polarizing !!!
October 18, 2009 at 7:27 PM
to; sorry again grammer
October 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM
As long as the owner of the website allows it, I will be anything I want to, you telling me what I should or should not do, is about as annoying as a fly buzzing around. No, this website, is for those who agree and disagree to discuss the issues concerning wildlife..
And by the way Richie, with your broken English stance on many things, you seem to be pretty polarizing yourself!
October 18, 2009 at 7:34 PM
I will say, I respect Ralph immensely for his ability to allow both sides of these very important issues to be voiced, it is hard to do and hard to listen to those you don’t agree with…he shows he is a true scholar and a gentleman.
October 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM
“Predators don’t hunt for the thrill of it and wolves have no predators upon reaching adulthood.”
Wrong on both points there Johnnie boy!!
If wolves don’t hunt for the “thrill” of it — why would they kill more than 100 critters in one night and eat NONE of them??
Wolves DO have predators — I’m one of them!!
Plus that, you know I am a hunter — therefore, in your eyes, I’m wrong no matter what I say. Give it a rest!!
““Wolves are competition”
Incredibly flawed logic and that does take your little thrill ride into the ‘revenge’ category.”
In the dictionary that I checked it says that revenge is:
“Wolves are competition”
Incredibly flawed logic and that does take your little thrill ride into the ‘revenge’ category.
“1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother’s murder.”
Can’t really see how that relates to competition John, if you can understand a good old american expression — you’re ALL WET on this one. Stand on your head, maybe the blood will run back into your brain.
October 18, 2009 at 8:50 PM
First of all:
Love the insults.
“If wolves don’t hunt for the “thrill” of it — why would they kill more than 100 critters in one night and eat NONE of them??”
While stronger animals are killed, predators instinctively go for the weakest specimens. Sheep are not that difficult to bring down and more kills provide more carrion. How the farmer managed to lose that amount of livestock in one night is beyond belief and probably did not give much thought into protecting the herd.
You? A predator of wolves? Wolves are apex predators – which means they are at the top of the food chain – nothing eats them. They have no need for a predator because they regulate their breeding rate with the number of prey in the area as well as a number of other natural causes such as adverse weather and health of the breeding pair. Killing wolves has adverse effects on the ecosystem. The 60 years prior to wolf reintroduction validates that point.
A killer would be more appropriate seeing as you have no intention to eat what you’ve killed. The intended purpose of hunting is survival not kicks.
October 18, 2009 at 9:04 PM
“If wolves don’t hunt for the “thrill” of it — why would they kill more than 100 critters in one night and eat NONE of them??”
This is a well-documented phenomenon in many carnivores and it has nothing to do with the “thrill” of killing. Most predators are primed to attack prey in a situation where the prey is vulnerable and presents the correct cues- fleeing, crying, etc. Surplus killing happens in situations where, due to prey being enclosed or otherwise vulnerable, those cues are presented again and again. It’s an instinctive response.
As far as the “adult wolves have no predators”- that’s a bunch of hooey. As far as non-human mammals go, the biggest killer of wolves is other wolves. Plus plenty of wolves get stomped and gored by their prey. Add to that mange, distemper, parasitization and other diseases. Wolves are certainly not invulnerable.
October 18, 2009 at 9:09 PM
…..In addition cougars, bears, eagles,etc all kill wolves,
such is nature.
October 18, 2009 at 10:17 PM
During the juvenile age but adults do not have any natural predators excluding, of course, fatalities caused by fights over carcasses.
October 18, 2009 at 11:59 PM
John I am sure that bears have killed more than one adult wolf since time began…
October 19, 2009 at 2:22 AM
Fair enough. Bears kill wolves, wolves kill bears. Mostly cubs but sometimes adults too. So… lead me to the part where the wolf or bear seeks its prey solely for an ornament?
October 19, 2009 at 6:13 AM
October 19, 2009 at 6:15 AM
The website is for anyone one correct but mostly for people who want to save wolves !!
October 19, 2009 at 6:22 AM
You sound like you really know the subject, I respect what you have to say.
October 19, 2009 at 7:20 AM
To All on website;
If coyotes,wild dogs,big cats, kill more sheep and other livestock more than wolves why is the wolf at the center of attention by fish and game and hunters? P.S. to the one who wants the trophy on his wall, this is what a hunter for sport is all about not for food. This is where the people who take pictures and the hunter for sport differ.
October 19, 2009 at 7:31 AM
So, technically a great way to end the disagreements between pro-hunting and pro-wolf people would be if we all focused our attention on Wildlife Services! According to some, they kill 1,000 wolves per year…this is insane (if it’s true, I’m waiting on data), considering they do it quietly and then allow the pro-hunting and pro-wolf people fight against each other…typical government, why didn’t I think of that?! Thank you “Wyo Native” for this information, and “Jerry B” for this:
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Commission(5 members): firstname.lastname@example.org (this goes to all members)
Montana Wolf Management Director, Caroline Sime: email@example.com
Director of Mont. Fish Wildlife and Parks, Joe Maurier: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please write to “Wildlife Services”, weather you’re a hunter or supporter. Not only to express your concern that they might be killing three times as many wolves than hunters, but that they do it secretly and for the benefit of special interest, not wildlife conservation like their site makes it seem (and they don’t face half of the scrutiny these wolf hunters seem endure).
We have to get to the bottom of this! How many wolves do they kill? How many Bobcats? How many animals have they killed with no consequences? Hunters and Conservationists unite, for we’re up against evil in the form of lobbied governmental organizations farcing their way into our lives only to divide us and thwart the issue at hand!
“Dear Wildlife Services,
I’m writing to express my concern over animals killed in 2008, specifically Wolves. Please send me this information as quickly as possible, and also include the reasons why the majority of the animals were killed. As a hunt goes on in Montana and Idaho I fear that you sit back and watch as Wolf hunters and supporters battle it out, meanwhile, word is, Wildlife ‘Services’ kills more Wolves than the current Montana hunt will even allow to the general public. Please let me know asap, thank you.”
Thanks guys, I appreciate all the info from both sides 🙂 I’m glad it’s working out so we can end this fight and end mal-practices at the same time!
October 19, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Sorry, but I never said that Wildlife Services kill 1000 wolves per year. I said that they have killed over 1000 wolves since reintroduction.
At year end 2008 they had killed 982 wolves in the three state recovery area since 1995, with 264 of those kills occurring during the calender year of 2008.
Then if you take into account the control actions that have taken place so far in 2009 we are well over 1000 wolves killed for livestock interests.
Click to access FINAL_2008_DEP_by_REC_AREA_Table+5a_3-15-09.pdf
October 19, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Thanks again for the information and clarification, I’m glad I didn’t accuse them of 1,000 per year!! But, it still warrants investigation, especially if it ends dissention between us civilians and focuses on a problem that needs more urgent attention (correcting abusive gov. agencies).
There is other ways to make a truly perfect hunting season while decreasing human and other animal conflict, right? What could it be? I always find it funny that humans (myself included) pride ourselves on being so smart, yet we can’t find ways to live and ‘sport’ with animals that is in a sustainable manner (meaning you can keep getting your trophy animals 25 years after this program is begun and the conservationist will be happy because there’s enough animals living happy lives in protected environments to sustain a diversely DNA-ed group of animals, meaning enough animals left who aren’t related to prevent inbreeding for all future generations). I’d be so proud of us as a civilization if we could truly respect animals like the wolf, and still allow the same freedoms people have grown accustomed to.
Idea #1: It may sound weird, but a program where the wolves are studied for years, and then the researchers (however reluctantly) get to choose what animals should not be killed this season. Those are marked and closely followed. Some may say it’s playing God, but, it also may be seen as the last resort of preserving a species that needs historical context and good genes to continue its life. What are other solutions?
October 19, 2009 at 9:31 AM
“What are other solutions?”
The simplest one- don’t hunt wolves for sport. In this day and age, hunters need to relearn what has been true all along, but which has rarely been enforced- wildlife isn’t here just for them, and wildlands aren’t their exclusive playground. They can’t always have things their way.
One of the first “lessons” of this nature was the total. permanent ban on hunting mountain lions in CA. As I have mentioned many times here before, we’ve now had 40 years of no lion hunting, and we, the lions, the deer and the elk have all managed to survive- CA has no more problems with mountain lions than any other state, despite all of the hunter-driven hysteria when the ban was made permanent.
October 19, 2009 at 9:40 AM
i do not like all this wolf hunting. after all the hard work everyone has done to reintroduce these beautiful animals is not being counteracted by a governor who apparently hates wolves and doesn’t listen……i am so much against it that i’m getting ready to do a project for class that will hopefully allow my class to see the bad effects this will have on the deer and elk populations. i am SO disgusted with our government.
October 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM
“CA has no more problems with mountain lions than any other state, despite all of the hunter-driven hysteria when the ban was made permanent.”
Maybe you could help me out here — as I remember, California has had at least two people killed by mountain lions in the last few years — when you say that they haven’t had any more troubles than other states, I don’t remember any other fatalities. Maybe you could point them out for me??
We did have an attack on a small child here in Idaho about three years back — happened on a sandbar in the Salmon River I think — but it wasn’t a “fatal”.
October 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Here is a link to the verified Lion attacks in California and it notes fatal and non-fatal attacks
October 19, 2009 at 10:24 AM
so now with the qualification?
Of course the majority of predatory attacks happen with the young,… and the old, and the sick or injured. (Sound familiar? any one?) Do we think that all old or injured wolves just go to some elephant type burial ground and peacefully pass away?
In an area where the prey base has been depleted for what ever reason do all the predators just say to one another ” oh wait, you’re a predator so you would be off limits to eat?
I’ll just starve instead.
Is it common? Maybe not.
Does it happen. Absolutely
October 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Thanks Save Bears.
If California really has “no more problems with mountain lions than any other state,” There are sure a LOT of problems in other states that don’t get reported.
Of course I guess there’s always the possibility that Save Bears faked the link. 8(
October 19, 2009 at 11:05 AM
….just an aside. I was hunting on opening day, at about 7:00 am, walking up the trail, which was covered with deer/elk tracks, all fresh within, 24 hr. So I stopped to kind of look around a little at one point like you do when hunting at first hint of light.
Breeze was in my face. I had stood there for maybe 1 minuet when from a little clump of brush about 30 yards more up the trail a half growl comes out and the sound of movement. I was turned sideways to the brush so by the time I turned towards it all I could make out was a quick flash of something hi-tailing it up the hill.
So I waited a couple of minuets to get my mind around what just happened and see if anything else was moving but my gut instinct was cougar. Then went up and checked the brush and sure enough a cat had been in the brush there. Whether it was sleeping and I surprised it or it was waiting in ambush and managed to see/scent me who knows. oh well, it was interesting.
October 19, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Save Bears did not fake the link. Other states have had cougar attacks as well, some fatal, some not, and the general trend is increasing over time (last 20 years to my knowledge) as we have more cougars (or coyotes or whatever pointy-toothed critters ) in proximity to humans. Or more humans in proximity to PTC. UPIK
I often hear people say bears, or cougars, or wolves or whatever PTC (pointy-toothed critters) have lost their fear of humans. I believe the reverse: that many humans have lost their respect for the ability of PTC to dispute their behavior in the woods. When you do a little investigation into these “attacks” you often find human arrogance or ignorance was the underlying cause. That doesn’t mean we’re bad – it means we’re dumber in the woods than our grandparents would have ever dreamed of being. Despite the fact that we know a lot more (or have the ability to know a lot more) about PTC behavior.
In short, if more people used their brains, we’d have fewer conflicts with PTC.
That said, killing of wildlife on control does seem to be a bit out of control in recent years. As long as the agricultural interests (including wine grape growers who get Wildlife Services to kill coyotes because they eat grapes then get Wildlife Services to poison the vine-eating rodents that had formerly been controlled by the coyotes – figure that one out!) have so much influence in Congress (take a look at what is the largest subsidy in each year’s budget) you’re going to have this. Hoorah over the attacks by PTC on humans, which are rarer than people being killed by falling fast-food machines, are just a distraction. Many more stock animals die each year through neglect and poor husbandry (USDA term) than from PTC munchings. Check out USDA’s own reports on that.
As a result, as long as Ag controls the budget and it’s easier to demonstrate response by whacking a few PTC (wolves in this case) you’re going to have that response. Make WS report on and justify each kill, as we make police officers report on and justify each time they unholster their weapon or apply force, and the sheer paperwork will change the response type.
Some control is neccesary in this human-altered world. The questions are: how much and how. Those are public policy decisions that can be changed if people want them to be changed.
October 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM
My wife and I took our two girls to Yellowstone this summer and had the magic experience of seeing the Cottonwoods as they were moving in to the Slough Creek area. The kids got to see them howl, hunt, play, rest.
Now I have to tell the kids that those creatures have been shot. And when they ask why some one did that, what am I suppose to tell them?
I have been patient with the idea of a wolf hunt, that states have a right to make their own decisions.
Well, I am patient no longer.
October 19, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Cougar. He was waiting for breakfast and you interrupted. So he commented and left. Been there, done the same. That’s how they ambush deer and other food articles.
You either didn’t fit the prey image or your behavior spooked him. He may well have let you walk right past if you didn’t spot him and you didn’t fit his menu – chances are as an adult male, you wouldn’t have, especially if you are fairly good-sized.
Fun experience, no?
October 19, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I thought we already discussed the CA issue. They kill like some odd 150 cats pr year as problem cats. So you are right they dont hunt them, but they sure as hell kill em…..
October 19, 2009 at 11:37 AM
“Save Bears did not fake the link. ”
October 19, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I thought it was interesting. I knew that there was at least one cougar up in that area as I have seen tracks as recently as last spring, along with quite a few bear, wolves and a whole bunch of other critters. Funny thing is that it is not far from a major hi-way, and major forest service road, you can see both from a certain elevation on up but in all of opening day for both deer and elk I was the only one up there, and for the last few years that I have been getting to know this particular gulch, very few people go in there compared to other, even more remote, areas.
Must have to do with having to actually get out of the pick-up truck to do more than piss, I guess.
Anyway, I am more than sure that way more cougar, bear, wolves, on and on and on, have seen me than the other way around.
October 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Cougars aren’t all that bothered by roads. It’s the vehicles on them (or more accurately the people in the vehicles on them) that are the issue. Cougars often travel on sparsely-used roads and leave a lot of sign on them if you know what you’re looking for. Watch and you’ll see it.
And you’re right about getting out of the truck. Research has shown most folks don’t get too far from that comforting life-support system. Especially if that means climbing UP. (Is the route to your area steep? Might be an answer.) That’s part of why road densities are such a big deal to grizzly bear folks. Somebody did a study a few years ago that indicated many hunters seldom get more than .25 mile from their vehicle (I do know many who don’t fit that stereotype). My experience is that poachers seldom get their feet muddy until after they have shot.
Glad you had a good experience and a good day. Many more to you.
Layton: links and whole websites can be, and sometimes are, faked. The internet is a big place with no truth filters.
On fatal cougar/human interactions, Washington had one in the 30’s, Colorado has had at least one (late 80’s if I recall), I think several other states have had one or more and BC has had a bunch (I know, not a state). But I would agree that California seems to lead the pack, at least for now. I don’t think they have more management problems of other kinds than other states, given the disparities in size and population (human).
October 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM
On California and cougars-
Remember that CA has far more cougars than other states, Almost all of the state, except the Central Valley, is good to prime cougar habitat. CA also has a very large human population. Given these two parameters, CA has *fewer* cougar incidents than would be expected, if you look at a per cougar or per human incident basis.
The hotbed for cougar attacks is actually British Columbia, as noted above, specifically Vancouver Island. This area has had far more cougar attacks than any other- and cougars are hunyed intensively there.
There is some good info here- http://www.mountainlion.org/sport_hunting.asp
Also check out this tremendously interesting research from Washington, which shows that cougar hunting actually *increases* problems with cougars and predation on mule deer- http://www.nrs.wsu.edu/Research/Carnivore/index.html
In short- there is absolutely no evidence that hunting is necessary to protect humans or beneficial for the cougars, or that stopping hunting has any negative effects.
October 19, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Don’t tell anyone in Iowa because they will want to shhot it, but we have seen fresh lion markings on a cedar tree here on my farm off and on for the last three years. Reaches up higher than I can reach. Why Iowa?? The area I live in was up for National Park consideration in the 30’s. Plus lots of deer!
The kill all folks shot one just below my place 8 years ago but I’d say this one is a lot bigger. Just a little note for all.
October 19, 2009 at 10:37 PM
You dont get it do you, they are not HUNTED, but they are sure as hell KILLED. Same thing, cougars are GETING KILLED in CA. Thats why it makes me laugh when people like yourself use them as an example and try to make it sound like there are no cougars killed in CA and that it proves some point about hunting predators. They are killed, just not by hunters…
So once again, in short, cougars are being killed in CA… just not by hunters..
October 19, 2009 at 11:42 PM
“You dont get it do you, they are not HUNTED, but they are sure as hell KILLED. Same thing, cougars are GETING KILLED in CA. ”
Yes, but as the data I posted showed (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/depredation.html), fewer and fewer are getting killed each year, and they are killed only if they present a legitimate threat to people or livestock- not shot randomly. Only 48 cougars were killed in all of 2008.
“Thats why it makes me laugh when people like yourself use them as an example and try to make it sound like there are no cougars killed in CA and that it proves some point about hunting predators. They are killed, just not by hunters…”
49 dead cougars from a population of about 5-6000 cats. That’s less than one-tenth of one percent of the population. Compare that with the following sport kills in each state, all with smaller cougar populations than CA-
Oregon- about 500 per year
Washington- about 200 per year
Idaho-about 400 per year
Montana- about 500 per year
Utah- about 400 per year
Colorado- about 200 per year
And, of course, a study by Craig Packer documented the decrease in cougar populations in the states where they are heavily hunted- http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005941
And researchers agree that populations in the NW are in decline, probably due to heavy hunting-
Cougars don’t need to be hunted for sport. The data shows it.
October 19, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Populations in the NW on the decline?
I don’t know where there studies are but cougars and bears seem to be on the increase in North Idaho. I’ve heard far more reports from hunters this year seeing cougars and have witnessed myself an increase in black bear and even a couple Grizzlies moving through the area. If you can recall one grizzly got shot by the elk farmer by I-90 over the summer. They also had signs up not to far from here warning people of a sow grizzly with cubs. A friend of mine had a cow elk decoy attacked by a cougar during archery season, lots of reports of cat up here.
October 20, 2009 at 12:45 AM
That’s cougar populations in the NW, not bears.
The WA researchers I linked to earlier noticed a similar phenomenon in northern Washington. There were more reports of cougar sightings, more reports of problem cougars…yet actual population surveys showed the populations were crashing. So why all the sightings?
See the article “Why We Need Old Cougars: With the grown-ups hunted out, teenage males run wild” at the WSU link I posted above. Basically, the overhunting, by killing off old toms that control the number of young cougars is leading to an excess of young male cougars; the most mobile and likely to be sighted, and the most troublesome. Unhunted populations are far more stable, as we are seeing in California.
October 20, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Its funny when we argued this last time, there were years when they killed anywhere from 150-200 cats. Ironically you quote the year they probably killed the least??!!?? Am i correct.. 🙂 I would bet a steak on it.. Science is only Science when its on your side.. 🙂
Cris please make sure you know where you are getting your data….
CA says using a CRUDE method they estimate about 4-6000 cougars. Quite an estimate.. basically they are saying they dont know… 🙂 Here is your link
Montana estimates around 5000 cats.. So MT and CA seem very similar with the population would you agree? Also MT fish and game website says they kill around 300 cats in MT each year through hunting.. ALOT smaller than your 500 cats per year.
Colorado also estimates around 4-6000 cats in CO. Cris that is why I take almost all that you say with a grain of salt. Its not hard to google search and find just about any “scientific” article to back up your point of view. You dont agree with hunting predators and no amount of “science” will change your mind. Just as no amount of “science” on your part will change my mind.. the endless circle.
October 20, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Sorry to interrupt, but I’m very interested in finding a solution to this problem, so regardless of how many Cougars killed how many people this year, last year, etc. I think (as usual) the original point was lost.
The massive amounts of animals we kill per day is exceeding what can be sustained (from civilians, orgs., companies, and govs.), and we need to find solutions to gradually educate and wean people from these unnecessary killings. But, specifically, we need to encourage both the hunters and supporters cease doing certain actions out of hatred toward each other (I know not all hunters hunt for spite, but after quietly visiting huntwolves.com, many are obviously doing it for that one reason). So, if anything, we can stop the hunting of any animal (especially if it’s not going to be used in every minicsule way), for the reason of hatred towards each other…we don’t need meat to survive (lifelong vegans at optimal health prove that), we don’t need to kill animals to survive, and we don’t need to threaten or argue to survive either. Why do we do it? Because we can, we have the time, the comforts, and our own established rights to do so. Unfortunately, the Wolves and other animals do not. They are afforded none of our self-imposed luxuries and are currently fighting for their lives and future. We are not out there in the woods running from a different smelling animal who has killed your brother. Until we are, I think we can only imagine (and should to enhance my point).
If humans are so strong, why don’t we risk our lives when we hunt? Wolves, Cougars, and Lions all risk their lives every time they hunt. A gun is not strength, not talent, not tactics passed down from generations of previous hunters…no, a gun is something anyone can use to FEEL those things. When I see a hunter run after a Wolf, tackle him down, knaw open it’s flesh to get nutrients to live, then I’ll agree with any and all hunting, or at the very least riding horses bareback while speeding along shooting handmade arrows into animals you truly respect and show gratitude before you consume. But…when bait, guns, and/or ATV’s are used, it’s not so much hunting as just pure disrespect, mis-guided tradition, and/or stubborness. That’s just my opinion, I’m not trying to be offensive, I’d just wish those that harm other peoples’ surroundings would become open-minded enough to see that they affect others in a negative way. Sorry. I know a lot will disagree, but before you press ‘submit comment’ please thing about my point. Thanks to everyone who’s contributing, let’s please try to find a solution to this horrible ending to an entire subspecies of animal.
Please respond only to this: (the above is only my opinion and does not need argument or persuasion, just an opinion:)
How can us hunters and supporters preserve a species while preserving favorite past-times? (Because obviously, neither will ever back down;) Thanks guys and gals! Onward!
October 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM
“And, of course, a study by Craig Packer documented the decrease in cougar populations in the states where they are heavily hunted”
This article is ancedotal at best. Its documented that cougar populations are nearly twice what they were in 1996 in oregon and many other states. The documentation they are using, Comparing 1920’s #’s to current numbers is flawed at best because the populations were so much smaller then. If you want to quote science…. Atleast use a semi unbiased source.
October 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM
I’ll try to answer part of the question anyway.
First of all you make an assumption that I don’t agree with, I’d have to see some sort of proof.
“The massive amounts of animals we kill per day is exceeding what can be sustained”
What animals are these?? Any animals I read about are usually on the increase. Wolves, as a whole, are NOT endangered and the ones in Yellowstone aren’t even hunted. Their population is subject to pretty much natural controls.
“I’d just wish those that harm other peoples’ surroundings would become open-minded enough to see that they affect others in a negative way.”
I’m not sure what this means — are you equating wolves and their surroundings to people??
“If humans are so strong, why don’t we risk our lives when we hunt?”
In a few words — because we figured out a better way. Humans are NOT “strong” when it comes to comparing them to animals. We don’t have the same natural attributes. We don’t run as fast or as far, we aren’t as strong, we can’t endure the extremes of weather – without clothes anyway, etc., etc.
The only attribute that we have to even somewhat level the playing field is our brains. The devices that you mention, guns, atv’s, etc., are a result of having that brain. Yes, maybe that makes us a bit “superior” but not that much. The critters still can run better, see better, smell better and we’re playing the game in their house!
” let’s please try to find a solution to this horrible ending to an entire subspecies of animal.”
Doesn’t this go right back to the first point?? If you are talking about wolves, they are NOT endangered, no way.
“How can us hunters and supporters preserve a species while preserving favorite past-times?”
Are you a supporter of hunting? Cuz’ I really don’t get that impression. But to answer the question.
I think that IS being done — right now, in spite of the efforts of many people that would like to see it (hunting) shut down completely and unconditionally.
October 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM
“How can us hunters and supporters preserve a species while preserving favorite past-times? (Because obviously, neither will ever back down;) Thanks guys and gals! Onward!”
I don’t think anything needs to change seeing as how populations of nearly all hunted species in North America are stable or increasing and its nearly impossible to link any population declines to regulated hunting. If you want to compare africa, a quick google search will show that countries that allow the dreaded trophy hunting have much higher animal densities than countries don’t.
October 20, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Let me present a question and really I do not know the answer. In history has a gun done more harm than good in the history of mankind? I mean everywhere in cities, in the woodland area’s etc!!! This might not be a fair question I understand this. As for Richard’s thought what he stated might be correct,you want sciencetific proof. But when you gentleman were writing about cougars nobody believed the links cris was bringing to your attention. So none of us are going to back down on our position, if their were proof that fish and game were really working with the people who love these animals I would not say much about a hunt. But when I see a small group of people do things so they can have a reason for a hunt, that is when it is unfair and I must speak up for the wolf and bear popualtion. Like letting sheep go graze in the open with no protection,that is like fishing with a hook and bait to catch a fish. A wolf sees this a a free meal come on,then the ranchers and fish and game say of must kill the wolves who are going after sheep. That is their instinct this is unfair pratice,this has been going down in history in different circumstances but with same result. Thanks for listening.
October 20, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Sorry, when you have some kind of a REAL idea about what is happening. specifically with the sheep, I’ll listen.
Until then I’m sorry, all you are doing is drinking the koolaid that the “for wolves” bunch puts out.
Just FYI, this “unprotected” band of sheep is pretty much a myth invented for the benefit of their own personal agenda.
Most bands have at least guard dogs and herders with AK47s or something equivalent. The wolves still get through and go on killing sprees.
The ultimate goal of these folks is to get ALL animals (except the ones THEY want) off of public land – even tho’ the ranchers PAY for the right to have the critters eat the grass. No, I don’t think the fee structure is right but that needs to be handled in another way than removal.
And, by the way, you mention “fish and game” working with “people that love the animals”. Are you aware that the ONLY time “fish and game” (state agencies) do ANY management of the wolves is when they are DELISTED?? While they are on the list (which the “green necks” are trying to get them restored to) any management is done by FEDERAL agencies.
October 20, 2009 at 10:10 AM
October 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM
I love when people use the “kool-aid” thing, because it makes it so easy for me to know who listens to Glenn Beck, thus who’s opinions to pass over.
October 20, 2009 at 11:02 AM
I know ranchers pay pennies for an acre so lets move on please.
You do not have to get so upset; you do not have to answer I been really nice about this Layton;and If what your saying about guards dogs and ak’s that is an assult rifle. sorry not needed,as for wolves getting through ranchers they get paid through defenders. The way I see it ranchers for the most part not all, want it their way or the highway. Coyotes ,cats,wild dogs do their fair share to sheep so please just protect the sheep better,and their are ways . I would explain but I ge the feeling you will turn a deaf ear anyway.
October 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Actually if I remember correctly Defenders is no longer paying for animals killed by wolves in either Montana or Idaho due to the delisting, I know in Montana, Ranchers are now paid by the state. I am not familiar with what the compensation plan in Idaho is.
October 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM
When I get “upset” you’ll know it, right now I’m just trying to tell you how things REALLY work — no propaganda — just what is happening.
Even when Defenders was (purportedly) paying it was hard, if not impossible to get all the money. Kind of amazing that the folks that have to “verify” the wolf kill could go thru 40 or 50 sheep that were killed in one night and call some of them “unknown cause”.
As for “assault rifles” not being needed. The ONE sheep rancher that I talked to this year that said he didn’t lose any animals was the ONE that said all of his herders were packing. I think that says something.
I think you are right, Defenders suspended their reimbursement pgm. when wolves were delisted here in Idaho.
October 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Yes I guess defenders will not pay if delisted defeats their purpose,just a side note, their raising money for a add in Times square for thanksgiving for the wolves of course.So anybody who wants to contribute here it is. grammer again last sentance I get the feeling
October 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM
“Ironically you quote the year they probably killed the least??!!?? Am i correct.”
Look at the graph on the DFG page I provided. Look at the trend in lion kills., It is going DOWN- sharply. As far as the population estimates, most lion biologists in CA now lean towards the 5000-600 figure. Even at 4000; the point remains- CA kills only a tiny faction of its cats and yet has no more or fewer lion problems than states where they are hunted. That is the issue here; you’ve presented absolutely nothing to refute it.
As for the Montana study you cited, are you aware that it documented overhunting of many populations in Montana? “DeSimone cautions that the information has not yet undergone complete statistical analysis nor the comprehensive peer review necessary to make scientific conclusions. However, he can make several general observations from the study. The most significant is that hunting has a major effect on lion populations. “People thought you couldn’t really overhunt lions because the animals were too elusive,”␣DeSimone says. “But in our study area, we found that hunting is the number one factor affecting mountain lion distribution and abundance.”…According to Mike Thompson, FWP western region wildlife manager, the research project confirmed that high quotas in western Montana during the late 1990s hit lion populations too hard and prevented recovery.”
October 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Right now I do not care if your upset or not; Again ak’s are not needed in this country it is an assult rifle NRA likes this,this is sick just plan sick. Never answerd question guns do more harm than good,but tha’s o.k. at this point do not want to know. Again their are ways to protect sheep without killing,anyway I spoke to an owner of a resturant and he said people are eating more chicken than veal so lose the sheep. Ranchers again not all just want it their way, and again AK’S are for war,which doesn’t solve anything anyway.
October 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Ryan- I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that that study I mentioned is quoting only “1920’s data.” It give some very clear charts of the trends in cougar kills in the last few decades. In addition, it needs to be looked at in context with the other studies I have mentioned showing cougar declines and social structure fragmentation.
The point remains the same. Random sport hunting isn’t needed to control cougar populations or to protect public safety, and it has detrimental effects on cougar populations.
October 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM
“Wolves, as a whole, are NOT endangered and the ones in Yellowstone aren’t even hunted. Their population is subject to pretty much natural controls.”
Both true! But it is also important to understand that even in the Greater Yellowstone recovery area, roughly 3/4s of wolf moralities are human-caused.
October 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM
“For example, Utah’s sport-hunting cougar harvests averaged 500/yr in 1995-7 compared to peak culls of 150/yr in 1946–1949 , and Montana sport hunters harvested 800/yr in 1997–1999 vs. 140/yr in the peak “bounty” years of 1908-11”
I guess you forgot about this quote right here. The assumptions made, like MT and ID harvest are dropping due to hunters but no mention is made of wolf reintroduction and or less houndsman participation due to negative wolf interactions.
“and it has detrimental effects on cougar populations.”
Don’t confuse your opinion and the Facts. Sport hunting for cougars has been going on for the last 50+ years and no populations are extinct in the west, in fact most are stable or increasing. In fact it has been cited that cougar removal is an important tool in protecting certain ESA listed populations of ungulates. (woodland caribou in ID being an example)
October 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM
“DeSimone cautions that the information has not yet undergone complete statistical analysis nor the comprehensive peer review necessary to make scientific conclusions. However, he can make several general observations”
You really want to hang your hat on someones “opinion” thats not been proven or peer reviewed.
October 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM
“In fact it has been cited that cougar removal is an important tool in protecting certain ESA listed populations of ungulates. (woodland caribou in ID being an example”
Did you read the study I posted on this? The ultimate reason that the caribou are being preyed on, at least in WA, is due to cougar hunting practices. More here- http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060040
In brief, overhunting led to range changes in female cougars, who moved to higher elevations to avoid pressure from male cougars. Invasive whitetails allowed them to survive, even through rarer caribou were preferred prey Cougar hunting gave a temporary respite to the caribou- but only temporary.
“The population was growing at the start of the study, when Wielgus discovered cougar selection on caribou and mule deer, but started to decline by 30% a year in 2000—just when complaints reached an all-time high. If current harvest rates continued, the cougar population would disappear within 30 years. Contrary to popular belief—and the rationale behind legislation authorizing emergency and public safety hunts—increased complaints did not signal a growing cougar population. “As complaints were going up, the population was tanking,” Wielgus says.
The intensive hunting in the Selkirks did achieve one thing: it relieved predation pressure on caribou and mule deer. Mule deer populations have recovered beyond expectation, but white-tailed deer are also increasing—at the rate of 30% a year. The strategy just facilitated the invasion of the white-tail, Wielgus says, which will likely outcompete mule deer for resources down the road.”
October 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Did you fail basic reading comprehension?
“White-tailed deer—historically rare in these parts—thrive on the immature vegetation left behind by forestry practices, and their numbers rose as those of native prey species declined. One explanation for the white-tails’ success could be that they outcompeted native species for resources. But Wielgus found support for an alternative hypothesis called apparent competition, a negative interaction between prey species that occurs due to shared enemies rather than shared resources. As the white-tails invaded native ungulate range, moving upland in the summer, cougars followed, and their numbers expanded along with their prey base—for a while. Cougar predation on white-tails was density-dependent—it increased or decreased in relation to population growth—but continued to increase on caribou and mule deer even as their populations declined [8,9]. This trend, known as inverse density-dependent predation, signals that a species may be headed for extirpation.”
From what I gathered caribou were in decline due to logging practices, white tail deer moved in and allowed cougar #’s to thrive and increased predation on Caribou in the process.
If you want hanging your hat on these “scientific” studies from the predator converacy project, I have some great information on guns and gun rights from the NRA you may be interested in.
October 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM
One more comment, then I’m done, you obviously have a New Jersey opinion that doesn’t match much with mine.
You have all the rights in the world to your opinion(s) about wolves, wars, AND AK47s — I have a right to mine.
BUT I have a flash for you — if you and the restaurant owner you talked to — I assume there in New Jersey — think that veal comes from a sheep (” I spoke to an owner of a resturant and he said people are eating more chicken than veal so lose the sheep”)——– weeeelll, I guess you know about as much about meat as you do about wolves.
Have a nice day.
October 20, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Thank God I eat sushi !
I knew you would bring up New Jersey sooner or later, my New Jersey opinion is just as equal as yours, I still think we live in America check your history. You hunters are so arrogant you guys are trying to beat up Cris all day and ak’s are still called assult rifles not hunting rifles but I guess you missed that point.Did you ever own any pets? I hope not ! P.S. I pay more for my quarterly property taxes than your ranchers pay for grazing in ten years.
October 20, 2009 at 6:25 PM
“Cougars selectively prey on mule deer but not sympatric white-tailed deer. We tested and rejected the hypothesis that many mule deer killed by cougars are actually mule deer/white-tailed deer hybrids that have poor predator avoidance and escape strategies. We also tested and supported the hypothesis that selection for mule deer was caused by cougar sexual habitat segregation. Only females (especially those with kittens) select for mule deer. Our preliminary results suggest that high mortality of resident adult males and corresponding high immigration by potentially infanticidal males results in sexually selected habitat segregation. Females with vulnerable offspring appear to select for high elevation, low density, mule deer ranges where infanticidal immigrant males are rare. Males select for low elevation, high density white-tailed deer ranges. Hunting of cougars may actually exacerbate, not alleviate, high predation on declining mule deer.”
October 20, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Woops- hit post too soon- these same high-altitude sites are those favored by caribou. Indiscriminate logging also plays a part, of course.
October 20, 2009 at 6:37 PM
To all hunters:
Did anybody ever see peta’s film on how race horses get slaughtered in a Japan slaughter house.One Kentucky winner was sold to a person from Japan ten killed, or how chickens lay eggs in little light pens versus cage free these are not pretty sights. Put yourself in that position and tell me how you would feel,this is not humane treatment but then again these films might be on your top ten hit parade movie hit list !!!! Good night to all and pleasant dreams !!!
October 20, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Now PETA rears is head…
October 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Of course living on the mean streets of New Jersey could be said to not be humane…
October 20, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Does it feel good to have your only education be propaganda films and ancedotal comments?
“Thank God I eat sushi !”
High seas nets and longlines used to get the Tuna you eat in sushi, kill thousands of porpises, turtles, and non target species. Do a little research on where your food comes from.
BTW, I have owned several dogs as well as my own farm animals that I have eaten.
“To all hunters:
Did anybody ever see peta’s film on how race horses get slaughtered in a Japan slaughter house.One Kentucky winner was sold to a person from Japan ten killed, or how chickens lay eggs in little light pens versus cage free these are not pretty sights. Put yourself in that position and tell me how you would feel,this is not humane treatment but then again these films might be on your top ten hit parade movie hit list !!!! Good night to all and pleasant dreams !!!”
And does this have to do with hunting? Is it pro hunting seeing as how the incidental take is much less and the animals live a natural life right up unitl it ends? Or is it your spouting off some dumbass steryotype about hunters being cruel? I’m completely lost as to what the fuck you are tyring to say here?
October 20, 2009 at 6:56 PM
“Our preliminary results suggest that high mortality of resident adult males and corresponding high immigration by potentially infanticidal males results in sexually selected habitat segregation”
So the resident males aren’t infanticidal? That makes perfect sense. 😦 I think they still have a long ways to go with their study.
October 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Join the club Ryan, I have not been able to figure out Richie’s position since he started posting on this blog!
October 20, 2009 at 7:21 PM
“Wolves, as a whole, are NOT endangered and the ones in Yellowstone aren’t even hunted. Their population is subject to pretty much natural controls.”
Only if they walk out of the park are they killed! this line smells of BS to me. How much would “pretty much” be? natural controls… come on… look at the stats. Natural death is very small compared to lethal control by humans. I’ll pull up the stats if I need to, but they have been entered on this blog a thousand times…..
October 20, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Time to start shutting Idaho down….
October 20, 2009 at 7:44 PM
I would love to see the stats for wolves in Yellowstone being subjected to anything other than natural controls.
October 20, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Evolutionarily, resident males are a lot less likely to be infanticidal, because they would then be killing their own offspring. When a new male comes in, he kills all the cubs he can, in order to make the female come into estrus sooner so he can breed with her.
Recent research is showing that cougars- especially females- are a lot more social then we thought. Females in an area are usually related, will socialize, and will sometimes eat together and even adopt orphaned, related cubs.
October 20, 2009 at 9:28 PM
What do you mean stats on wolves being killed in Yellowstone? I said outside of Yellowstone… boundary. Read it again if you would thanks.
October 20, 2009 at 9:29 PM
“Only if they walk out of the park are they killed!”… clearly stated….
October 20, 2009 at 9:54 PM
But if you insist here some stats as reported from our Ms Caroline Sime: (page 18 of the Montana Gray Wolf
Conservation and Management 2008 Annual Report)
“The majority of wolf mortality overall in Montana is related to humans: livestock conflicts, car strikes, train strikes, illegal killing, legal harvest in Canada, and incidental to other activities (e.g. trapping/snaring). Of the 161 mortalities of wolves originally captured in Montana, 155 died in Montana. … Agency lethal control accounts for the highest number and percentage by cause of wolf deaths in Montana COMPARED to other causes of death. Of 161 mortalities documented in 2008, 68% (n=110) were killed to address livestock related conflicts. …
She goes on further to report on mange:
In 2008, field monitoring confirmed the presence of mange (an ectoparasite) in several packs in southwest Montana. The Cedar Creek pack (Madison Valley) had mange, but no mortalities were documented and none were euthanized. In the Paradise and Boulder (south of Big Timber) valleys, the Eight Mile and Baker Mountain packs had manage. Individual wolves that were remnants of the Chief Joseph and Swam Lakes also had mange (which led to the dissolving of those packs in 2007). A total of 4 wolves were eunthanized by project personnel due to advanced stages of mange and the secondary effects and health complications associated with it. Four additional wolves that died (i.e. were not euthanized) had confirmed cases of mange when examined by project personnel. Mange has NOT been documented in northwest Montana (MTNWMT)
or western Montana (MT-CID). (source: Hamlin and Cunningham, 2009; see:http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/game.html)
Lethal control of wolves accounts for more wolf deaths then a “natural death”, such as mange.
October 20, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I know perfectly well what you wrote.
He was not discussing wolves outside of Yellowstone being “subject to pretty much natural controls.”
What happens to wolves outside of YNP had absolutely no bearing to rebut his argument.
October 21, 2009 at 1:23 AM
All the wolf deaths in Yellowstone have been natural except for about a half dozen auto accidents, and one control kill. If you consider mange to not be natural (it was introduced by humans deliberately), then a growing number of wolves in Yellowstone Park are afflicted with it and some have dying and are dying.
Idaho wolves overall seem to be a lot more disease and parasite free than those of Wyoming and Montana, inc. YNP. I might go so far as to say that many of the places in Idaho are better wolf habitat, were it not for humans (and maybe even with them) than Yellowstone Park.
October 21, 2009 at 2:21 AM
You guys are deaf !l
October 21, 2009 at 2:22 AM
and no heart !
October 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM
Grow up I live by the ocean do you surf with dolphins ? I don’t think so !!!
October 21, 2009 at 2:31 AM
You do not have to use foul language but I guess that was coming too you guys have a lot of class!!!! NOW DOLPHIN FREE TUNA IS HERE NOW AND NETS IN TURTLES I KNOW WE ARE FIGHTING ALL THOSE THINGS MAN !!!!!! I am just bringing points to open up your heart on wolves !!!! Now if we did not have Salazar in and have Kennedy in , it would have been a different story !!! THAT’S IT no delisting of wolves politics man politics man no science !!!
October 21, 2009 at 2:34 AM
To sb and ryan !
and you never will get it either !!!! I stop trying to reason with you guys !!!! lol
October 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Glen Beck must be a favorite of your and those peta films are real but as I said must be on your top ten greatest hits !!!ever hear of Randi Rhodes ?
October 21, 2009 at 2:48 AM
You have to be one of the funniest I have ever seen on this blog, because people who ACTUALLY live in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, have a different take on things, we can’t hear, have no understanding and have no heart, all I can say is WOW!. For me personally, I have never condoned getting rid of wolves, I was there the day they released them and watched the release, and have worked as a biologist in the arena to preserve balance in the wilds..
Now if your swimming with dolphins where you live, I can say, you got moxy, that water is darn cold back there, the last time I swam with dolphins was in Hawaii, there is no way I would do it in the Atlantic!
October 21, 2009 at 2:48 AM
In asbury park in one three month period their were three deaths due to gun “GUNS’ violance !!!! NO I DO NOT THINK ALL HUNTING IS BAD JUST NOT FOR ME !!!!!!!!
October 21, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Hey, if it is not for you, that is great, and I respect that, but why can’t you respect that fact it is for others?
October 21, 2009 at 2:51 AM
To Jay ;
I am a progressive dem for your information wrong again ! Listen to health care bill phyzer stock is up they lobbing fought lower drug cost to Canada,does it sound like I listen to Glen Beck , grow up !!!!
October 21, 2009 at 3:16 AM
Your correct veal is a calf have not eaten that since I was a kid !!!!!
October 21, 2009 at 3:18 AM
Go kid !!!! go
October 21, 2009 at 5:30 AM
Not sure if anyone is paying attention, but here is what the 2008 wolf report says about wolf mortalities in the GY recovery area (Y2008):
26 (human) + 83 (control) = 109
109/148 = .736
So roughly 3/4s of all wolves in the GY recovery area die from human causes.
October 21, 2009 at 5:31 AM
Thus figures are form Table 2c.
Click to access FINAL_Table_2a_2b_2c_GYA_3-15-09.pdf
October 21, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Tell me more about this?
“If you consider mange to not be natural (it was introduced by humans deliberately).”
October 21, 2009 at 9:05 AM
“NOW DOLPHIN FREE TUNA IS HERE NOW AND NETS IN TURTLES I KNOW WE ARE FIGHTING ALL THOSE THINGS MAN !!!!!!”
Many species of Tuna are in decline worldwide and the bycatch is appalling.
“I am just bringing points to open up your heart on wolves”
Huh, posting PETA propaganada videos will open peoples hearts to wolves? I don’t hate wolves, but I do hate PETA.
“Now if we did not have Salazar in and have Kennedy in , it would have been a different story !!! THAT’S IT no delisting of wolves politics man politics man no science !!!”
Science died with regards to wolves years ago, the delisting is sound and wolves won’t be endangered due to hunting. See what people like you fail to get, is that the last thing the states want is the wolves to be relisted again. Unfortunately people like yourself will never accept anything but zero populations management.
October 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM
the stats I pulled are from the same report- quoted. How can the stats be different then?
October 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM
JB: (and I hope people are interested)
I can answer that for you as you are not online right now evidently:
If you look at the next page of that report, at the bottom in fine print this table says data DOES NOT SHOW lethal control.
here is what it is says.
1 Underlined packs are counted as breeding pairs toward recovery goals.
2 Excludes wolves killed in control actions.
3 Does not include pups that disappeared before winter.
4 Collared wolves that became missing in 2008.
5 Includes agency lethal control and take by private citizens under 10j regulation.
6 Includes only domestic animals confirmed killed by wolves.
7 Pack did not exist on December 31, 2008 and is not displayed on the map; see pack narrative
Your stats are skewed for this particular discussion. My point was that wolves do not primarily die from natural causes and the stats show that.
October 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Why spend so much time on arguing this point??? Why argue truth??
October 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Who was arguing the point that wolves outside of YNP primarily died of natural causes?
Anyone with half of a brain can read the yearly reports and determine that human caused mortality on the wolf population outside of YNP, is by far the number one factor in wolf deaths.
October 21, 2009 at 12:14 PM
You know you are right I’ve just re read the past 5 days of this blog and that was not the original point. Must have been a late night or something.. and whenever I see the names ryan or layton I begin to get nitpicky… Im sure there will be no sympathy…. doesn’t matter, I’m sure I’ll survive. Not the first time I or anyone else has made an error on this blog. And, I can admit my errors.
Yes, indeed anyone with half a brain can read tabled stats, but you did not not include the second page – which would have been relevant regardless
shall we move on?
October 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM
“but you did not not include the second page – which would have been relevant regardless”
What in the world are you talking about????????????
October 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM
? Why native
Maybe you should look at your tables again….the above criteria that goes WITH the tables you posted you did not post. but I think this is done deal now.
I’m not that nuts.
October 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I think you are nuts, because I never posted any tables regarding causes of wolf mortality.
October 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Well that is true you did butt in here…
October 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM
I think you are looking at the Montana report. I was posting stats from the Greater Yellowstone recovery area that are available in the FWS Annual Reports. I wasn’t posting them in response to your post, but simply to show that even in the GYA (with protections in the park) that the vast majority of wolf mortality is human caused. Sure, wolf deaths inside the park are mostly natural, but “resident” wolves often travel outside the park.
October 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I know JB_thanks for speaking up
October 21, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I don’t recall you being involved in the original conversation between Layton and Richard Ganson, that you failed to comprehend, until you butted in and went on this whole diatribe.
You should calm down a little and stop accusing people of not paying attention to what they post, when you are the one who is failing to comprehend what is being posted and by whom.
October 21, 2009 at 2:12 PM
What do you mean calm down? I am blogging just like you.
Since it is a blog, people outside of me, pick up threads and move with their thoughts from then. I already apologized for my error / owned up to it. Perhaps you should calm down yourself.
October 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Is there a nobility on this blog? that I am unaware of?
October 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Your alright kid; All I am trying to say little babies infants,animals can’t protect themselves from us.As a whole in the entire world animals are taken advantage big time. Second largest illegal trade behind drugs are animals, think about,more than guns,traffic of people etc. Peta had their own thing goin but what they have on tape is really bad. You been lucky to see the first relase and swim in pacific wow that is great. I love the west man all of it, really. yOU ARE VERY LUCKY SB.
October 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM
I would not like a hunt but if their was sound proof I would agree not overjoyed , so why is so many,NRDC,EARTHJUSTICE DEFENDERS ARE SO Aagainst it. The ones are on your side are all hunting groups so maybe their is a way to meet in the middle. Look I really do not think money has been put into a real good environmental model. With elk,deer everything from engineers,to hrdrogist,for water table etc,biologist etc. Mapping out the area with trees are on it shubs,etc.Ryan this was more politics than anything else Salazar is a rancher,so who is he going to side with. As for peta when I seen the winner of the Kentucky Derby get sold to a guy from japan then go to a slaughter house that was disgusting. First the electrode is not made for a horse so if that doesn’t get him he is gutted alive. I am against selling our wild and all horses for slaughter. Remember this horse won the big race,we as a race should not have the word humane in the dictionary. Human beings are far from that word.
October 21, 2009 at 5:33 PM
“so why is so many,NRDC,EARTHJUSTICE DEFENDERS ARE SO Aagainst it”
Because they are against wolf hunting in general, no matter where or population status.
“Kentucky Derby get sold to a guy from japan then go to a slaughter house that was disgusting”
Why? Horse meat is eaten throughout europe and Asia, jut not widely popular in the US. Even it the electrode didn’t kill him, the subsequent throat slitting would have. Remember when your supporting PETA, even your beloved Sushi is Taboo.
“Look I really do not think money has been put into a real good environmental model. With elk,deer everything from engineers,to hrdrogist,for water table etc,biologist etc. Mapping out the area with trees are on it shubs,etc”
This is done all across the west, although they don’t do too much engineering studies on habitats.
“Ryan this was more politics than anything else Salazar is a rancher,so who is he going to side with”
You mean as a progressive democrat the Messiah didn’t do you right.. Say it isn’t so.
“In asbury park in one three month period their were three deaths due to gun “GUNS’ violance”
If the guns weren’t there, do you think there would be no murders. The gangs would all just sing kumbahya and get along. Here is a news flash, people have been murdering people pre guns and will be doing it post guns.
Just a little reccomendation for you.
Put down the bong, use a little spell check, and re-read your posts atleast once before you post to make sure they are atleast slightly coherant. Also try to keep it to like one or two subjects, that are atleast marginally close to the topic being discussed. Its not really possible to hit every thing that bothers you in one post and have people not scratch their heads.
October 21, 2009 at 8:02 PM
I do believe you are a I think I got a correct word foy it bigot keep the hate i becomes you !!!! P.S. keep shootin !!!!!!!
October 21, 2009 at 8:14 PM
I will put down the pipe now going to sleep, and to all have a good night, and good night to a very special loving people gline and sb . Keep up the love for the wolf ! I hope I made no errors.
October 22, 2009 at 2:52 AM
Sorry again it becomes you, I will write slower Ralph, I am so sorry.
October 22, 2009 at 8:45 AM
“I do believe you are a I think I got a correct word foy it bigot keep the hate i becomes you !!!! P.S. keep shootin !!!!!!!”
Oh I remember the definition to this one..
Bigot: Anyone a liberal disagress with. *Also see: Fascist.
October 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Is that like “we are approaching socialism” O.K.;
See I can only speak for me, but people who are upset with the hunt, see killing as hurting something full of life. Many people like wildlife roaming free, reminds them of how it is being free, like a free sprit thing. Many of these people love animals,some are vegetarian’s ,we have the bear group in New Jersey. Similiar arguments, or points of view, but people are the same, hunters versus people who love bears or animals in general . I know you will bring up, what do they eat, animals are brought to slaughter houses etc . These who love animals are contradicting themselves I know, but try and save some part of nature,animals etc, makes people feel good, I mean on my side of the fence. If If can be so bold to speak for animals lovers, we hurt when we see something innocent gets hurt. Like the whales and the ship the “Sea Shepherd”, nobody like how the whale runs for it’s like,again these are people who have a similiar opinion of mine that’s it. Again it was very cruel of you to speak about the horse that way he ran his legs off to win that race and that’s how humane beings reward him or her, we are not humane Ryan . As for the NRDC, defenders,earthjustive which used to be Sierra Club Legal defense Fund not true, if they thought a hunt was called for, I really do not think they would not stand in the way. Also they think nature will take care of itself, like the wolves who die from living in the wild with the elements,now they have us to worry about wow . So we just see things different, people are more sensative to different things in life,by what they experienced, how life unfolded for them. I love the west, the history of the NEZ PERCE BROUGHT ME CLOSER to your area.First love was California many years ago, but that’s it. Bet you hate the Nez Perce tribe now,Chief Joseph “I will fight no more for ever”, got to get to Bear Paw mountain his last stand. I was reading a couple of books on them, one was “yellow wolf” great book. Yes I am a green neck I think you said that or somebody else said that, but does this make you guys red necks. lol just a joke !
October 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Its not worth debating with you until you have something other than “feelings” to back your positions.
The one thing I will mention is that the bear hunt that got stopped in NJ, was stopped because of feelings, not logic or biological issues. The populations are healthy, one thing that has happened is that bear incidents have gone up since the hunt ended in 05. (btw, not all black bear hunting is done for trophys, black bear is very good eating and I’ve put a few in the freezer over the years) Negative human encounters are up over 20% in the last year. The bears need to be managed for the habitat avialiable, not managed per “feelings”.
For the year, there were 138 reported Category One calls, up from 121 for 2008, including a July 3 incident in Montague where a bear chased two girls into their house from their yard and then began scratching on the door once the girls were inside. Overall, calls to DEP about bear complaints have risen 22 percent with 1,726 calls received this year to date compared to 1,413 calls last year.
October 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM
See you just don’t get it THIS IS NOT A DEBATE MAN as to try to work together. Now do not tell me about New Jersey bears, people bought homes in their tterritory look it up it is a fact. Now they do not buy the proper trash cans like the ones in Yellowstone, besides you are still a hard ass, can’t be nice to you goes over your head like a low flying ship. I have heard the different sides on this. Did you also raed wild control shot a cub to death out of a tree, the women said if she known this she would not have called them.
October 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM
“I am not here to debate you, Jerry. I am not here to debate….Oh,for Chris’ sake here” quote from the movie, FARGO.
October 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Richie: You are in the “emotional” argument/debate now… there is supposed to be no emotion or feelings when speaking of wildlife evidently. Just the facts ma’m. You are supposed to be a robot and go along with the status quo don’t ya know?
October 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM
“Did you also raed wild control shot a cub to death out of a tree, the women said if she known this she would not have called them.”
What were they supposed to do it was near a school in a residential area? BTW did you read about the guy this summer that got mauled in his driveway so the bear could take his sandwich?
“Now they do not buy the proper trash cans like the ones in Yellowstone, besides you are still a hard ass, can’t be nice to you goes over your head like a low flying ship”
Proper trash cans doesn’t have anything to do with over population. Facts are pretty hard ass lol. I’d be willing to bet if you went back far enough in history, your house is in bear territory too.
But I forgot…
“Our black bears… the dolphins of the woods.”
October 22, 2009 at 6:06 PM
The area is right behind the woods where the cub was shot you always have excuses Ryan, that’s it. Besides thought you said you put bear meat in a freezer,thought you guys burry it in the ground, Wow ? Not so tough are YOU, you would get along well with the pineland people down here they are bigots and renecks too! lol
October 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM
To gline! If it was not for you these guys, give wolves and bears a bad name. People like you let me know the west is in good hands, good night warm hearted person.
October 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM
The area is right behind the woods where the cub was shot you always have excuses Ryan, that’s it.
I was just reading about the situation, the bear was also a known offender and not his first run in. As for the rest of your post.. What are you talking about? I mean seriously what do you mean by this?
“Besides thought you said you put bear meat in a freezer,thought you guys burry it in the ground, Wow ? Not so tough are YOU,”
Emotions on either side cause problems, whether is be the Iraq/afganistan war started by emotions or the wild horse annie laws. The end result is still bad.
October 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Guys…. I lost you…Who said what and when…and of course..why don’t we all get along…maybe we can all meet in Silver Tip bar in Gardiner and talk…
October 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM
or have beer?
October 22, 2009 at 7:12 PM
lol izabelam- may not be a good idea tho! I can see drinks flying….
I think East coasters have quite a say in this topic, as they have lost much of their wildlife- at least predators, specifically wolves. There has been talk of introducing wolves in the Adirondaks, where they used to thrive, but that won’t be a long time in comming… livestock issues again. The east coast has seen the devastation and want the west to be protected because they know what it is like not to have.
October 22, 2009 at 7:13 PM
I don’t think emotions are a bad thing Ryan, as long they can be controled to have valuable discourse. To label someone as emotional because they have a different opinion isn’t right. Environmental issues are very very emotional. Always have been. There is no denying that.
October 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Richie: thanks for your kind words, but there are many different types of folks out here, just like in NJ. Stereotypes, ownership, culture, discrimination- we’ve got it all. But throw in natural predators to the mix – well, look at their history for God’s sake. I was actually born in upstate NY next to a thousand acres of woods. I ran barefoot all summer long in those woods looking for frogs and snakes. Of course we had no wolves. but I’ve lived here for 20 plus years now, different woods, more wildlife, and I hate to see them killed for stupid reasons. Humans could be more respectful, we ain’t the only game in town.
October 22, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Of course I must say I would rather see hunting for food then the “farms” april spoke of. those farms are a whole different degrading, environmental downfall… just against trophy hunting really, here in Africa… anywhere. Its just disrespectful. I see no game in it, no risk on the hunter’s part, just a fake photo…of the “hunter” and large animal
October 22, 2009 at 7:18 PM
*here or in Africa meant to say
October 22, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Gline I thought we already went over the “trophy” hunting episode. Its a very SMALL percentage of hunters and in no way shape or form represents hunters in general..
October 22, 2009 at 7:39 PM
You do realize that so called “Game Farms” in Africa are larger than many states in the US and the so called trophy hunter is revered due to the fact, they don’t keep the meat, it normally goes to the local villages to feed the villagers because on many of these game farms the local villagers are prohibited from hunting.
Also as Josh said, the percentage of real trophy hunters is a very small percentage of hunters that purchase hunting tags.
October 22, 2009 at 8:29 PM
I think this thread has finally played out.
Thanks for your comments.