Matt Mead replaces Dave Freudenthal as WY governor

Freudenthal should be remembered for his use of anti-wolf hysteria-

There are differences between Democrat Freudenthal and Republican Mead. However, on wolves it will probably be slight.  Freudenthal, however, was a pioneer of sorts in using wild, irresponsible  exaggeration of the impacts of wolves. Five years ago he was claiming that the then much smaller Wyoming wolf population was not only destroying the state’s wildlife, but its very economy.  If his view of things was true, I guess by now the state would be depopulated save for the few stragglers the wolves hadn’t taken down yet.

We haven’t heard much of that from him lately. That’s probably because it was a total fabrication, and the economy later on did decline severely because of real problems at the national and international level — an unfortunate intrusion of reality.

15 Responses to “Matt Mead replaces Dave Freudenthal as WY governor”

    • JB Says:

      The first item on the list of comparisons was wolves! That’s hilarious–and profoundly sad. One would think with all of the real problems in Wyoming, wolves would fall by the wayside. I suppose it is the fate of all symbols to be dangled in front of the masses to divert attention from real problems–political slight-of-hand.

      On the disastrous effects of wolves…

      Several times I have brought up the irrefutable fact that there are a number of western states with 2,500 to 6,000 cougars and cougars kill at similar rates and have similar energy needs as wolves. So how is it that 350 to 1000 wolves (depending upon your state) is a disastrous and destructive force, while 2,500 to 6,000 cougars is not? Can we just admit that this whole wolf “problem” is a charade?

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++Several times I have brought up the irrefutable fact that there are a number of western states with 2,500 to 6,000 cougars and cougars kill at similar rates and have similar energy needs as wolves++

        I have thought about that long and hard.

      • jon Says:

        JB, you bring up a very good point.

        I posted this link before and I am sure you read it.

        http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/article_d9cf046b-2c47-539f-a267-972e72e570b6.html

        6000 cougars in Oregon and you have some complaining that the 30 plus wolves are going to kill off the wild game. It’s ludacris.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jon, Oregon used to have 1,000,000 deer, the current count is 650,000 deer. Deer tags are on a draw and hunting has been curtailed because of the population drop. Oregon outlawed the use of dogs to hunt cougars with. The deer populations started to drop after that law, maybe there are others factors but get use to it people like to hunt.

      • jon Says:

        I just commented on the point JB made elk. Elk, the deer #s are down. the days of having exploding and extremely high #s of deer and elk are gone. You have other predators in the ecosystem that need to feed. The only way you’re going to bring those populations ( the deer, elk, moose, etc) back to the very high #s you want them at would be to eradicate all of the predators. It is not a shock to most that deer populations are down in some states. There is nothing wrong with this.

      • JB Says:

        Jon:

        Yes, I remember the post. I think this part, especially, deserves repeating:

        “… he found that mountain lions killed more deer, elk and moose during the summer by focusing on juveniles and actually killed fewer animals in winter. The information contradicts previous studies conducted in Idaho.

        ‘The Idaho estimates differed from our summer estimates by as much as 365 percent in terms of frequency of killing and 538 percent in terms of prey biomass,’ Knopff wrote. ‘Because kill rate fundamentally influences the effect predators have on their prey, the discrepancy between studies represents a substantial difference in the capacity for cougars to impact ungulates.'”

        I certainly don’t want to shift the “blame” for perceived elk population drops to cougars; however, it would be nice to hear rhetoric that fits the probable impacts of these species. Unfortunately, I don’t think we have a really good handle on what these impacts are yet–especially when multiple predators and climatic changes (i.e., drought) are involved.

      • ProWolf in WY Says:

        JB, the funny thing is, you have Montana which has some of the lowest wages in the nation spending so much time complaining about wolves as well. Seems priorities are a little messed up. Then you also have Idaho that spends so much time pissing and moaning about wolves to the point that people are not booking hunts there. I’m not going to claim I know about Idaho’s economy but it seems to me that maybe these states need to look at things that might be just a wee bit more important.

    • Salle Says:

      And just below the article are links to other “related” stories where I found this:

      BLM opens Wyoming’s Twin Creek Trail for extended elk season

      http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=237

      This is near Cody where a majority of the “outside the park” wolves live… so how could they have eaten all the elk if there’s an extended season? There are other issues regarding this extended hunt but the first thing that stands out like a red flag is this point.

      • Salle Says:

        Oh phooey!! That’s not the right link!!!

        This is the link I meant to post:

        http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/article_f83addf0-1f0a-5811-b9fa-8d1dc4e49ca9.html

      • ProWolf in WY Says:

        Salle, it really is amazing how people will ignore things like extended elk seasons and say wolves are eating everything. There are people I work with who claim there are no more elk in northwest Wyoming and people at my church who say there will be no more elk in the southern part of the state because the locusts (I mean wolves) will move there and eat everything. I’ve said this so many times; how did wolves become the second most widespread animal in the world (after humans) if they are killing off their food supply? I wish some of these people would give that about a five second thought.

      • jon Says:

        You make a GREAT point pro wolf in WY. If wolves were capable of killing off their food supply, they would not be here today. The question you just asked is the question you should ask these wolf haters every chance you get. I would love to see them explain that.

      • ProWolf in WY Says:

        Jon, I have not been able to argue this very often, although I have with my dad and aunts and uncles. (I’m a bit of a rebel in my family that way🙂 ) They never have an answer to that other than this was all virgin wilderness. Even if I mention that some of it still is and can support wolves they still argue it’s not the same. Honestly, it is like a doll with a string that can be pulled. Makes for some interesting talk in the duck blind on the holidays.🙂

  1. Ralph Maughan Says:

    Thanks jon,

    I decided to write the post after I saw this article.

    I think what politicians say and what really happens should be compared. Most stories just report what they say.

  2. Nancy Says:

    Since 1950, Oregon’s population has increased at a faster pace than the U.S. population as a whole. Oregon’s annual growth rate exceeded U.S. rate for most of the years. Between 1950 and 2009, Oregon’s population increased by 150 percent, whereas U.S. population increased by 102 percent.

    Other factors? Hell yes!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: