Four New Wolf Delisting Bills Introduced

They’re all bad for Idaho wolves

Yesterday Orrin Hatch, Max Baucus, and Jon Tester introduced bills into the Senate, and Denny Rehberg introduced two bills into the House. All of them would delist wolves but there are three approaches taken.

S.249 and HR 509 would delist all wolves nationwide and prevent them from ever receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act, while S.321 and HR 509 would delist wolves only in Montana and Idaho.

The Baucus/Tester bill would make the 2009 delisting rule law, and has changed from last year’s version which would have placed minimum threshold of 518 wolves identified in the IDFG plan into effect. This bill contains no such language so essentially Idaho can reduce wolf populations to 100 or so wolves as defined in the Idaho Legislature’s plan. The Montana plan calls for managing wolves for a population of at least 342 wolves.

The Rehberg bill, HR 510, would simply delist wolves in Montana and Idaho but would not require the states to follow their own management plans leaving the door open for wolf eradication if directed by the legislatures of each state.

Baucus Tester S. 321 Wolf Bill

Hatch S. 249 Wolf Bill

Rehberg HR 509 Wolf Bill

Rehberg HR 510 Wolf Bill

183 Responses to “Four New Wolf Delisting Bills Introduced”

  1. Richie G. Says:

    O.K. now the bluedogs are involved, with the republicans, why don’t they just change parties. The fight is on again,they will not rest until every last wolf is gone from the west, in my opinion.

  2. Mike Says:

    Sad news. You’d think these goofs would have more important things to do.

  3. Ralph Maughan Says:

    They hope to attach one of these bills to the continuing resolution (the CR) to fund the government that has to pass in early March. Congress didn’t pass a budget last year and we having operated by CRs since.

    The March CR is “must pass” legislation or the government shuts down. If they get a delisting wolf bill hooked onto it, it will pass, but it is a tiny piece in a big puzzle.

    There is such chaos in Washington now, with some tea partiers wanting to close the government down, and so many interests with their bills they want to attach, that it is unclear what will happen. If the government does shut down for more than a couple days, wolves will be least of folk’s worries.

    • jon Says:

      Ralph, out of the 4 bills. the Tester/baucus bill seems like the best one. Do you agree?

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        jon,

        What are your criteria for judging?

      • jon Says:

        The least extreme one imo Ralph. Some wolf advocates won’t be happy with any of these bills, but we all need to realize sooner or later wolves are going to be managed one way or another. We may not like it, but it will happen. it’s out of our control.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        Jon,

        You are right. Wolves have been sucked up into partisan politics. It’s about saving or defeating Senator Tester, Senator Hatch, etc.

    • william huard Says:

      Get on the phone to Boxer, Cardin, Kerry, Saunders, Sherrod Brown, Merkeley, both Udalls, and Durbin to make sure this doesn’t happen. If I am not mistaken a CR still has to be voted on, and senators can block additions even on a CR. I am sure Democratic senators will hold to their principles on this issue- on the grounds that this would set a terrible precedent.

      • Save bears Says:

        William,

        You and I agree, no matter what side of this issue you are on, Congressional intervention of this nature sets a very bad precedent..

        Picking one species to block from the ESA undermines the whole intent of the law, and could have extremely bad ramifications for future restoration efforts of other species that actually are endangered…

      • jon Says:

        The esa is flawed. Some animals like wolverines truly belong on there, but aren’t.

      • william huard Says:

        What is this world coming to Save bears we have agreed on two issues in a row! I just called every one of Hatch’s locations to tell him it’s about time he retire. The pandering to far right groups is very unbecoming- not to mention the fact that he is what 124 years old!

      • jon Says:

        William, Hatch calls his bill the “American Big Game and Livestock Protection Act. In response to these recent anti-wolf bills, Rodger Schlickeisen said most Americans “care very deeply about our nation’s wildlife and want to see all animals protected from needless persecution.”

        “These bills would sacrifice wildlife belonging to all Americans just because a small minority of people don’t like wolves,” he said.

      • Save bears Says:

        The flaws in the ESA have been exposed due to this back and forth over wolves, and unfortunately other species are suffering because of it..

      • Alan Says:

        The question is: How do you get the attention of these senators and congresspeople? Everytime I try to contact one from outside of my state I get a very polite, but curt, “Thank you for contacting me, but you are not my constituent and I only have time to listen to their concerns. Please contact your own representative.”

      • Save bears Says:

        Alan,

        Have you contacted your representative? If not, then you need to..

  4. Save bears Says:

    I would not be surprised to see even more bills introduced before the vote in March, they are going to throw as much shit against the wall in the hope that one of them stick…

    The joys of politics in America!

    • william huard Says:

      Alan-
      If you call the Congressional switchboard at 1 202224 3121 and ask for a senator- most of them log down the topic on a computer and don’t care if it is their constituent or not. Most national issues like the wolf issue are important to all elected officials because it involves the ESA- just be respectful and they will hear you out

  5. jon Says:

    http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/26828922/detail.html

    Look at what Tom Woodbury says,

    “Woodbury thinks the bill is all about politics and not science. He believes politicians are trying to turn Montana into a livestock yard. Tester believes it is up to the states to decide.”

    tester believes it is up to the states to decide. What if there ever comes a time when any of these 3 states decide to want to eradicate wolves? Who is going to stop them? If you give the states the power to do whatever they want, you can expect A LOT of dead wolves.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon you have to take into account a good amount of the land in Montana is either state owned or privately owned…although I understand many people don’t think this should be an issue, it is an issue..

      • skyrim Says:

        Save Bears
        On another thread you noted that your ancestors had Homesteaded in Lincoln. Mine did as well in about 1890. Up Sucker Creek Road. The Tucks “Liverpool in Last Chance Gulch” Happy to share info I have on the early days if you’d like. Ralph can give you my e-mail.

      • Save bears Says:

        Hi sky,

        Not mine, but my wife’s family, but after 25 years of being married and when home spending the majority of it in Montana, I guess, I feel a certain comfort in saying Montana is home..

        Ralph is more than welcome to give you my contact information, I love talking about Montana, especially with others that have families that homesteaded here..

  6. JimT Says:

    The strategy is still the same. Find some way to convince Boxer to keep the bills bottled up in committee in the Senate. The House has enough nuts in it to pass it; others will see the gutting of the ESA as a good thing economically, or for private property rights, etc…doesn’t have to be because they hate wolves as they do in these 4 Mountain states.

    Ralph, are you sure procedurally they can attach to a CR instead of a regular bill?

    • Save bears Says:

      JimT,

      Private property rights whether you like it are part of this issue as well as many others in the US, I know that the constitution does not specifically address private property in the sense we are discussing it, but it has been a strong issue every since this country was founded, it is not going to be easy to overcome, and I don’t know that we should even try…I know I own property, I pay for my property every single year between mortgage and taxes, and it does not set well when I wish to do something with my property that is not detrimental to the environment, only to be told no, or I can’t afford the studies and red tape to do it…

      • JimT Says:

        Save Bears,

        Since the invention of private property…yes, it was a legal invention..there have always been restrictions on use. The more radical private property rights people would like you to believe you can do any damned thing you want, but you can’t.

        As for detrimental..sometimes that is in the eye of the beholder…all of us here probably own property, and yes, I have been told that as a member of the community, certain restrictions apply as a matter of the privilege of living in that community. I think that is an acceptable principle. What I don’t agree with is the misrepresentation of the extent and scope of this “bundle of sticks” as they are called to hinder or prevent an otherwise legal and justifiable pursuit.

        And lest we all forget, the public lands carry certain property rights as well in the names of and for the benefit of the collective owners. Adjoining private property owners have to recognize that as well..and it appears in this debate over wolves and other things, that gets lost in the kerfuffle.

      • Save bears Says:

        JimT,

        You obviously did not see what I posted the other night about my attempt to build an outbuilding on my property which is encompassed by a grizzly bear recovery zone..

      • Save bears Says:

        I think one of the biggest problems when it comes to talking about property rights, is the fact that many don’t comprehend, we don’t live in communities, as is being defined by you, I don’t live in a neighborhood, I live on land that is not boxed in, I can’t see my neighbors, they are over a mile away. When defining communities, we need to compare apples to apples and not oranges to apples, which often times happens in these discussions..

      • JB Says:

        Save Bears:

        I thought you would find this passage from an 1818 South Carolina court enlightening. Note: “unenclosed” and “uncultivated” lands refer to those that were not fenced or in agriculture:

        “…the right to hunt on unenclosed and uncultivated lands has never been disputed, and it is well known that it has been universally exercised from the first settlement of the country up to the present time…The forest was regarded as a common, in which they entered at pleasure, and exercised the privilege; and it will not be denied that animals, ferae naturae, are common property, and belong to the first taker. If therefore, usage, can make law, none was ever better established.”

        M’Conico v. Singleton, 1818 (South Carolina Supreme Court)

        – – – – –

        I find it ironic that the people who continually complain about access to hunting are the same that insist on enforcing their “right” to exclude people from private property. As this ruling makes apparent, there was a time when the “right” to trespass in the act of hunting was unquestioned. How the times have changed…

      • JimT Says:

        Save Bears,

        You have a more limited notion of “community” than I do, I believe. I have lived with no one around either, on the top of a “mountain” in Vermont when I was City Manager there. But, I still am affected by the people that are around me, and vice versa.

        I missed your post on the outhouse, and perhaps the regulating folks were too letter of the law, perhaps not. If you are relying on seniority as a measuring stick, saying you were there before the zone and its protections…hell, the bears were there before you…One could go on and on about it. Did you explore other alternatives..ie, composting or electric toilets? Surely you have electricity even if it is generator…

      • Save bears Says:

        JimT….

        Outbuilding…NOT Outhouse..

        I have electricity, about 90% of it is generated by me, between solar and generator, I am also on a telephone line, I have actual running water drawn from my well..

        But it was and Outbuilding, not an Outhouse, we do have indoor toilets that actually flush!

        LOL

      • Save bears Says:

        JB,

        I have never once denied access to my property for hunting…

      • Save bears Says:

        But JB,

        Yes, times do change…that I will agree on, we can’t run this country the way we did in 1818, back then, virtually every person depended on their ability to hunt, there were no McDonald’s and no real Grocery stores..we will never be able to go back to 1818..of course if we could we would be right back in the mess that everybody is trying to rectify these days, extermination of wolves, extermination of native americans and the beginning of market hunting and unregulated trapping..

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      JimT

      There are “clean” CRs and then there the other ones. Yes, I think they can with the cooperation of the leadership.

      Delisting would not go through any committee and the attachment would probably come in the U.S. Senate. The House has stricter rules of what is in order and what isn’t.

      Any deal on the budget will probably have to be negotiated at the highest levels. Wolves won’t matter unless they bring in a vote or two. And any negotiated solutions might be shouted down by the tea party, and things will drag on with government shutdowns for a day or two at a time. A deal on the budget might be made if the financial markets start to collapse.

      • JimT Says:

        Wolves will matter to some Western Senators if WE make it important, Ralph. I still believe there is lots of room for leverage with the Udalls, etc…Let’s keep our hopes up, and ears to the winds of DC rumor mill…

  7. william huard Says:

    Jon, Defenders is right. The most frustrating thing to me is Rehberg and Hatch with these IRRESPONSIBLE bills to strip protections from Mexican wolves and the wolves in the southeast- who the FU&^ do they think they are?

    • jon Says:

      Yeah, they don’t give a crap William. They are only thinking about those special interest groups.

      • Save bears Says:

        Jon,

        No matter which side of the issue you are on, both sides are full of special interest groups…

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Jon

        Now you know how the “right” felt when the “left” “shoved” healthcare down there throats. Now the right is doing the same thing. Politics are interesting to say the least. Oh, how the tides have turned.

      • JB Says:

        “…when the “left” “shoved” healthcare down there throats…”

        How dare the Democrats attempt to the improve the health and well-being of society! Don’t you worry. The Tea Party is happy to ensure your right to be sick and health care free!😉

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “How dare the Democrats attempt to the improve the health and well-being of society! Don’t you worry. The Tea Party is happy to ensure your right to be sick and health care free! ”

        Yeah, I’ll take the tea party over the democrats. At least you know what they are for/against😉. Oh well, I’m sure they’ll sell out eventually too (tea baggers). People aren’t worried about wolves when there hours are being cut back (if they have a job) and now they will be forced to purchase healthcare even if they don’t want it. Oh, thank you Democrats, thank you so much!

        It’s obvious (to me) that the wolves will be delisted w/in the next year or so and the states will “manage” them very well. I say pick the best one of the bills and throw your support behind that one. Meh, good luck w/ your uphill battle, it’s a guarantee that the two sides will not come to any agreement.

  8. Izabela Hadd Says:

    Can someone posts all the phone numbers here for all people we need to call. thanks.

    • william huard Says:

      Izabela- you call 12022243121 that is the Congressional switchboard- just ask for the senator you want and they will connect you. I listed a few above to call , I would also include Bernie Saunders from VT and Sheldon Whitehouse from RI

      • Izabela Hadd Says:

        Thanks. I have called my senatros and the reps sitting on thephones there have no clue. Anyway, made my point there.

  9. Nancy Says:

    +Outbuilding…NOT Outhouse+

    SB – I seemed to have missed that post also and not trying to re-visit a sore subject but what were the reasons for not being allowed to build an outbuilding on your property?

    • Save bears Says:

      Nancy,

      I live in a recognized/designated grizzly bear recover zone, I was told, I would have have an EIS done, allow public comment, (all at my cost). I can’t just build on my land, even though I pay the taxes and the mortgage. I have to have approval from the agencies in charge of grizzly bear recovery and the county commissioners can deny my request based on public comment, even if they approved it, I would have to have the Federal Government approve it!

      It was to much trouble, and way to expensive, because I can’t afford to hire the people they approve to do the EIS, it was just easier to go to costco and buy a tent building to store my excess in..

      Now take into account, I am behind on my property taxes and they can take it away from me, or sell that tax note(they won’t) and I will get caught back up.

      But I can’t build a building that has no impact, but I am fully expected to pay those taxes…it is a catch 22 situation…

      • Elk275 Says:

        Save Bears

        Most people just build it anyway, you know that. There no building permits required where you live and who would know. All of your neighbors have done the same thing.

      • Nancy Says:

        That’s very interesting SB. If you hauled a trailer in there for storage would that be approved? Or built a storage unit underground??

      • JimT Says:

        OK. sorry for the quick read. Out building…

        OK, check and see if it is the freestanding nature of it that is causing the problem. Is there anyway you can “attach” (a loose term) it to your living structure and avoid the EIS requirements? Attach could be a simple overhead walkway/wooden trellis, or a roofed walkway….

      • JimT Says:

        Why an EIS…?? I mean, the usual procedure is a EA and FONSI for agencies these days…..I agree, seems like overkill to me…

      • Save bears Says:

        JimT

        Your guess is good as mine…there are some weird rules out there that do have affects on peoples lives..

        As Elk said, I have no requirement to obtain a building permit, but yet due to the recovery zone I had other requirements thrown in..go figure..

      • JimT Says:

        Do you have a Federal Register cite to the rules you are referring to?

      • Savebears Says:

        Jim at this time, no I don’t I didn’t pursue it any farther. I am tempted to try again, due to the fact we have a new forest manager in place and see what happens.

    • Save bears Says:

      Elk,

      Yes, people do, I should have, but I try as hard as I can to ensure I am following the rules, but I can tell you, it is getting more difficult..

      I pride myself on my integrity…but with everything going on, it is not as easy as you might think..

      Man, I can tell you things have sure changed!

  10. ProWolf in WY Says:

    All these wolf bills are being introduced when we have plenty of other worse problems in this country? I see some people’s priorities.

  11. Immer Treue Says:

    During the Reagan years, I decided I would never again vote for another Republican. I have held that line. When I saw the number of wolf bills listed, and how the Dems have not fought back, compromised on what, in my opinion should never have been compromised over the past two years, there seems to be little hope.

    At least the Republicans come right out and screw you, the Democrats do it clandestinely. Perhaps it’s time to stop voting for the Dems, if they can’t stand up for their convictions, then they should whither up and blow away. Yeh, Ralph, they’ll try and attach one of these on something big, and it will just slip in.

    SB,
    You’re also so correct. They keep slinging the shit, and sooner or later some of it either sticks, or you get buried in it.

    • jon Says:

      Today, it’s very hard to tell the difference between a democrat and republican.

    • Salle Says:

      They keep slinging the shit, and sooner or later some of it either sticks, or you get buried in it.

      Maybe that could be more realistically phrased as: They keep slinging the shit, and sooner or later some of it either sticks, and/or we get buried in it.

      It no longer sticks to them, it only buries us and all that we care about. The new world order…

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Salle,

        Thank you for the correction. The phrase now has a much better ring. Guess when I wrote it, I was a bit on the down side, and I forgot that the others with the same cares and feelings.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        huh?

        and I forgot that others have the same cares and feelings.

  12. Salle Says:

    Well, given the Citizens United SC decision that allows corporate cash dispensed in copious amounts it just seems to logically follow that all legislation goes to the highest bidder. After all, isn’t that what capitalism is all about? Democracy is a thing of the past anymore, at least here where corporations obviously have more power and rights than individual citizens. All the laws that once protected us from such interests now favor them or have been co-opted and/or repealed.

    Welcome to serfdom USA. This is an example of how it will all go from here on out.

    • william huard Says:

      These far right justices have gone way over the line into uncharted territory. If the HC bill hits the supreme court and Thomas doesn’t recuse himself I think there will be problems. I’m not sure exactly what can be done from a legal standpoint but he will take some significant heat

  13. Harley Says:

    Ralph,
    Please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I promise!

    But, in your ‘perfect world’, how do you think things should be? Should wolves be managed? Should any wild life be managed? Who should be in charge of all that?
    I for one do not want to see anything wiped off the face of the earth but the facts of the matter is that populations are increasing and I’m not so sure humans and wild life, of any species, can really live peacefully side by side.
    (You should see the private war being waged on the chipmunks in our subdivision that have been steadily invading and increasing over the past 5 years!)

    I’m just curious and I want to learn, I promise I’m not trying to pick a fight here. And that question is really open to anyone here.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Harley,

      It depends on people mean by “managed.” The word is not specific and it can mean many things from feeding wildlife, nursing their wounds, to killing them because they eat grass livestock owners want. People who say “wolves must be managed” usually mean we must kill most or all of them.

    • jon Says:

      Yes, the human population is also increasing Harley. You don’t feel that this is a very real and big problem? I don’t know why some are so afraid to touch this problem as it’s a far bigger problem than worrying about animal populations. Harley, do you realize that some animal species are going extinct because of our overpopulated species? The more and more people there are, the more habitat that will be yanked away from the animal that need the habitat. Humans will kill off their food sources and these animals will either starve to death or if they are big enough, go after people and kill them just to eat them. We humans are the problem and people need to start discussing ways to manage our own population and stop worrying about less important things like animal populations.

      • Salle Says:

        And humans are the only species, that I am aware of, who will pollute their own bodies ~ think smoking, drug abuse, food abuse, chemical dumping in or near residential areas ~ and destroy their habitat (kind of the concept of defecating in one’s own bed… even dogs won’t do that unless they are confined to a small space by humans who cause such unhealthy and un-natural action.)

        But then, it’s all about us, all the time. They result of the instant gratification society…

      • Salle Says:

        Oops, I meant A result of the instant gratification society. Guess we’re no longer eligible for classification as “the great society”… unless you mean it as in,
        ‘oh, great.”

      • jon Says:

        Good article to read here Salle.

        http://www.naturalnews.com/029056_environmental_protection_population_control.html

        “Truth #4 – Humans really like to have babies

        “This is also self-evidence: People like to procreate. Every family, it seems, wants children, and those children want their own children, too. In general, human beings want to procreate without limitation. This, of course, leads to an explosion in population growth. We’ve seen this explosion over the last two hundred years as the Earth’s population has grown from less than one billion people in 1800 to nearly seven billion today.

        Human beings do not consider their impact on the global population when they procreate. The decision to have children is made privately, selfishly, without regard to the impact on the planet. One more child seems like no big deal from the point of view of a couple that wishes for another son or daughter, but multiplied by billions, these decisions to procreate en masse lead to overpopulation, which leads to over-consumption of the planet’s limited resources.”

        If something is not done in the future about this serious problem, you can guarantee some animal species will die out. Just look at all of th subspecies of tigers and even other big cats like lions are in danger of becoming gone for ever. There used to be 100,000 lions a few decades ago and now there are around 20,000. It is not looking good for some animal species.

      • Save bears Says:

        I would agree that human population numbers are a problem in many areas of the country and does cause conflict with wildlife.

        That said, in the states involved in this issue, that is really not one of the problems, the populations of MT, WY and ID, as well as Eastern Washington and Oregon is pretty low, the human density per square mile is very low in these states. As it goes, even Utah is not all that populated..So in the context of discussing wolves, it is pretty much a non-issue..

      • jon Says:

        And this is the most important without a doubt.

        Truth #3 – Humans are altering the environment

        “You can’t argue with this (although some people ridiculously try). Human activity is altering our environment in a huge way, from the massive deforestation of the planet to the release of gases into the atmosphere. We’ve poisoned the rivers, destroyed natural habitat, polluted the oceans (Gulf of Mexico, anyone?) and altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere. These are undeniable scientific truths. No sane person can reasonably argue that human beings have not radically altered the environment of our planet over the last 200 years.

        If you visited North America 200 years ago, for example, you wouldn’t even have recognized it as the same continent dominated by human beings today. A few hundred years ago, North America was teeming with life, with huge old-growth forests, pristine rivers and abundant plains. Today it is relatively dead, having been over-developed, over-paved and over-population to a point so extreme that our ancestors would largely consider it “dead”.

  14. Harley Says:

    I guess maybe I’m just trying to simplify it too much. It’s frustrating sometimes to watch good people, for the most part, so polarized about these types of topics.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Harley,

      You’ve got that right. I guess we can be as tolerant as possible, but when that Red squirrel starts tearing through the side of your cabin, you have to do something about it. I guess some ranchers would use the same logic. Then again, I’ve talked with people who will ***revel*** in an entire day of blasting gophers. As Ralph said, there is a difference between management and just killing to get numbers down.

      If you want to get a good feel for the wolf controversy, I and I believe many others here would suggest you read Carter Niemeyer’s “Wolfer”. The book will provide profound insight into the entire wolf re-population of the NRM states and the controversy that comes with them.

      • jon Says:

        Some people are willing to co-exist with wildlife while some others aren’t. I think it would be extremely selfish of us to not try and co-exist with wildlife. The problem is some don’t even wanna try. They just wanna kill things that they think might cause problems for them. Sometimes I get woken up in the morning because birds are chirping and making all kinds of noises. Should I kill them because they are causing me to wake up? I mean it’s nonsense. They may cause me an inconvenience, but that is no excuse for me to kill them and take their lives. They are just doing what birds do. Squirrels also go through my trash and rip the bags open and make a big mess and I still wouldn’t want them dead just because they do that. They are just animals looking for food. They should not be given a death sentence just because they make a mess and I have to clean the mess up.

      • jon Says:

        Immer, have you read Cat urbigkit’s book yet?

      • Harley Says:

        Jon,
        most, not all but most would agree there is a HUGE difference between birds waking you in the morning and property destruction. I don’t mind birds waking me but if a woodpecker is drilling holes into my home, I’m gonna want to stop him. I personally will look for something that won’t harm the animal but if that can’t be done, I’m willing to take the next step. I don’t have a lot of money to invest in filling up and fixing destruction done by animals.
        Another thing too in regards to population…That is a fact that we must all face. The population is increasing. Even if the US restricted parents to just 2 kids…And I pray that never happens. But even so, the population would still increase as we find more ways to prolong life. Co-existing would be nice but in some cases, it just can’t be done. I can’t imagine what packs of wolves would do to the suburbs of Chicago, particularly when the fear of humans is taken away. People already get upset when the occasional coyote grabs Fifi from the back yard. I would be upset, very upset if a coyote got a hold of my dog or cat. And you can’t bring up that argument about people keeping an eye on their pets or their kids. You can’t watch everything 24/7. Would it be cool to see a wolf? I think so! But I have a very healthy respect for them and any other predator. Deer too along with the small rodents, squirrels and chipmunks. Barb Ruperts? I think that’s what her name is, Lee in other places, brought it to my attention about deer and moose being dangerous to people too. I mean, I kinda figured that, they are wild animals, but I for one just kinda never gave it a second thought. The first thing that came to my mind was predator attack, ya know? Because it sorta kinda makes more sense, that’s why they are called predators!
        Ok, anyway, I’m done rambling. I guess my deepest wish would be for some kind of common ground to be found but that’s so difficult when, as I said before, so many people are on such polar opposites of the issue. I do see a lot of good people on both sides of the issue, passionate people who truly believe what they are talking about.

      • jon Says:

        You’re making excuses Harley. I will watch my dog as long as it takes to make sure he’s safe, but that’s just me. Sure it may be an inconvenience to some watching over their pet very carefully, but if you love your dog or cat as much as I love mine, you’ll do it and not complain about having to do it. We have to make sacrifices if we want to protect our animals from the dangers that are out there. I believe it was elk275 who said he is more scared of moose than wolves or other predators. Moose are very dangerous animals, but a lot of the time, people only seem to think that predators are the only real threat out there to people.

      • Harley Says:

        Oh yeah, for certain do not get yourself in a situation with a rutting moose or deer! They have big hooves and big antlers!
        But I know people who have a dairy farm. The cats they have can’t be kept in, they aren’t those kinds of cats. But they do serve a vital purpose in keeping down the rodents. The coyotes have taken a toll on them and have even gotten bold enough to come close to the buildings when people are present in the day light. Now, just because they don’t stand over those cats to protect them, watch out for them, doesn’t mean that they don’t care for them any less than maybe you or I would of our pets. I guess maybe I’m thinking an over abundance of anything just isn’t good. Even humans for that matter. City living is not for me, waaay too many people, you know? But I don’t feel I should dictate to someone else how they should live and where.
        I did like the point that Saves Bears brought up, that where there is conflict between people and predators, it usually seems to be in the western states where populations aren’t quite as crazy as they are around here or in the east.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,

        As of this time, I have not read Cat Urbigkit’s book. Every time I go to Amazon, I just can’t seem to pull the trigger, but it is on my list of books to read.

      • Elk275 Says:

        I can not wait until spring and waking up and hearing the birds start singing with the first colors in the sky.

      • Harley Says:

        Interesting read JB, Thank you.
        I’m not sure these cats are true ‘feral’ cats since they can be handled and approached. They live in the barn, not in the house. Actually, there is a no animals in the house rule unless there’s a sick or injured animal that needs the extra attention.
        When you have any kind of live stock, horses, cows, whatever, there is bound to be a rodent problem because of the feed. Any suggestions on what would be the best way to take care of that? Poison is out of the question, traps don’t always work, some of those rodents are smart little buggers! I definitely agree with the whole spay and neuter idea! Again… too many of something isn’t good. In that link there was something about the impact that feral cats have on native species, which again, I’m not going to argue, most transplanted species have a tendency to just take over. Zebra Mussels are a fine example of that along with the Asian Carp. We worry about these species because they have that tendency to just wipe out everything around them.
        Why is that any different than say the wolves over preying on elk? Again, not trying to be antagonistic! Please don’t take it that way! I’m just really honestly trying to understand. It could be that I’m being over simplistic again. Sometimes it’s easier to try and fit things into boxes that you can put a lid on, if you know what I mean!

      • Salle Says:

        Don’t know where you guys are but up here, at ~7000ft , I hear birds in the mornings… chickadees, pine grossbeaks, crossbills, ravens… though it will be nice to hear the warblers when they get back.

        I had an awesome cat several years ago, born in a barn and was absolutely and indoor/outdoor cat. She was beat up by the great horned owl that lived in the blue spruce behind the house, took her about 6 weeks to get over it psychologically.. eventually, she was, after another altercation with said owl, captured and “disappeared” by another owl after we moved to a different state. I was devastated but in the grand scheme of things, I was more at ease with her having been a meal for wildlife than being hit by a car. The same for myself, if I end up being food for a bear or cougar, I’m okay with that, especially if it gets away with it and not “managed” by WS after the fact. Besides, I’m only big enough to be a snack.

        As for human overpopulation, part of the problem stems from religion, history, agriculturalism and social peer pressure. A field day of topics for cultural anthropologists. If the industrial revolution never happened, this would still be a far off in the future problem.

        And do read Wolfer. It makes so much more sense out of the snippets of truth and accurate info that you get from the media or anywhere else.

      • Harley Says:

        Downloaded it to my Kindle since they don’t carry it at any of our libraries. Probably… delve into it tonight. Looks very interesting. Thanks for the recommendation!

      • Harley Says:

        Immer
        Talk about your small worlds, the author of the book grew up just north of my Iowa relatives. Wow. I would have no doubt that they knew him, it seems that everyone knows everybody out there, towns are so small.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Harely,
        The world is becoming small. I met two women from Louisiana in passing in N. Minnesota one Winter when they tried dogsledding with a friend of mine. The following Summer, I was in the mountains somewhere in Colorado with a friend who is a nationally acclaimed Bonsai specialist. He wanted to show me some old Bristle cone pine formations. We were in the middle of absolutely nowhere. We had to ford a stream and to make a long story shorter bumped into the same two women I briefly encountered in MN.

        I hope you enjoy Wolfer.

      • JB Says:

        Hi Harley,

        I really don’t know what I’d tell your friend? It seems to me that farms create a sort of “micro-ecosystem” of their own–feed for cattle brings in birds, mice, rats, and other mammals which are, in part, “controlled” by domestic cats, which, in turn, become food for coyotes and feral dogs.

        We tell urban residents that the first step to getting rid of unwanted wildlife is to secure garbage and other food sources (e.g. don’t feed your dog or cat outside). However, that probably isn’t realistic with intensive livestock production (I have family that once ran several hundred head of cattle, and remember the feed piles).

        A good start would be to make sure your cats are spayed, neutered and up to date on their shots. At least that way they aren’t contributing to the feral population, nor spreading common diseases.

      • Harley Says:

        JB
        Clicked on your name and I was led to a site with some pretty awesome pictures. Did you take all of those?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I agree, I clicked on JB’s name after Harley’s comment. Those pictures are awesome. Gotta get into a photography class, that looks like fun.

      • JB Says:

        Thanks! It was photography that got me interested in wildlife. I don’t get the opportunity to shoot much anymore–just a few trips a year.😦

      • Harley Says:

        I used to take pictures a loooong time ago but then I got sidetracked. I miss my 35mm. It needs repair but it’s difficult to find anyone who works on the ‘old timer’ models anymore.

  15. Harley Says:

    Elk275
    I second that! This has been a long winter but probably not nearly as long as it’s been for some of the western states! I miss the bird song. Yeah.. and though they are pests and will probably dig enough holes under our house to make the foundation settle even more, I even miss the chipmunk sounds!

  16. steve c Says:

    Glad to see that they are focusing on getting the economy going again!

    • Bob Says:

      steve c
      May not effect your economy but if passed it will have a positive effect on the Montana and my economy. That’s the true difference between differing views on the wolf how he effects your pocket book. Just follow this blog, wolves have little economic effect on pro-wolfers. Sure we have increased “peasant” service jobs around Yellowstone. We are also losing money on a larger scale, livestock that are not reimbursed, fewer hunters and people who rely on that industry. Everyone loves a wolf until he start stealing money from your wallet.

      • steve c Says:

        I have personally spent thousands over the years going to Yellowstone to view wildlife. Your lifestock arguments are pure bullshit and you know it. The feds spend hundreds of millions exterminating animals around this country on behalf of livestock producers who graze on MY federal land at little to no cost (to you anyways). In short, YOUR economy (cattle welfare) affects MY economy (federal subsidies from my income tax going into your pocket).

        It also affects the economy of every american when our politicians spend time dealing with issues such as these instead of working to chip away at the huge unemployment rate.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “MY federal land at little to no cost (to you anyways). In short, YOUR economy (cattle welfare) affects MY economy (federal subsidies from my income tax going into your pocket). ”

        You could look at it that way or look at it as subsidizing low income families. By paying less for feed the ranchers can sell the beef for less, saving families money. Now if you don’t eat meat, well then you are getting hosed. Then again, I do not have kids nor will I most likely, yet I have to pay for a bunch of entitled brats to get subpar educations…So I guess everyone gets screwed in some way! : – )

      • steve c Says:

        http://stuffaboutstates.com/agriculture/livestock/cattle.htm

        I hardly think subsidies to cattle producers in Montana/Idaho/Wyoming does anything to lower food prices. Look how little beef is actually produced in the areas in question.

      • Savebears Says:

        Steve,

        I have worked tirelessly to change the public grazing laws, but one thing I will note here, no matter which side of what ever issue we are discussing, those federal lands belong to all of us, those that are pro and those that are anti..

      • steve c Says:

        And I completely agree that there is suitable federal land for millions of cows and suitable federal land for wildlife, wildlife migration and hunting.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Cool site. Looks like more than 1/6 of beef is raised in OR, ID, WA, WY, MT, CO. I must admit that it is less than I would have thought. Figured more like 1/3 to 1/4 range.
        Thanks.

      • steve c Says:

        Wolf predation accounts for something less than 1% of cattle loss (defenders says .11%). Lets say its 1%. 6.5% of cattle are produced in MT, ID and WY. Doesnt seem like wolves are in any danger of destroying the US cattle industry.

      • Salle Says:

        Since there are more nonranching citizens than ranching citizens, you’d think we’d have more power of determination over OUR property.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I never said wolves were a major factor when it comes to cattle depradation and do not really like cattle on public lands. I was simply saying that by allowing cattle to graze on public lands, it lowers the price of beef. By how much, it seems very little. Wolf depradation seems to be greater when it comes to sheep.

      • steve c Says:

        Wolf moderate, I wasnt really directing that at you. It was for “bob”.

    • steve c Says:

      Montana should start selling permits to shoot cows in Paradise Valley. That would be a great way to put money into the pockets of livestock producers.

      • Salle Says:

        I’d buy one.

      • Savebears Says:

        The vast majority of this area is privately owned land…so Montana does not have much to say about it..

      • steve c Says:

        They have plenty of say in how much money they piss away hazing bison and hunting down wolf packs on behalf of those private landowners.

      • Savebears Says:

        Well most of the money spent for predator eradication is actually Federal Money as that is done by Wildlife Services, a Federal Agency..and a good amount of the money that is used in the Bison hazing and slaughter programs comes from APHIS another Federal Agency..

        I don’t agree with either program, but it is important to know where most of the money as well as actions originate from..

      • Savebears Says:

        As has been said many times on this as well other websites, it pays to follow the money trail, and in most of these programs, it originates with the Federal Government…

        It is quite a twisty trail, but it does pay to dig in there and find out who provides most of the funding, so you can actually direct your anger to the right entities

      • steve c Says:

        It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what each party spends on hazing operations (feds vs MT DOL).

      • steve c Says:

        And I think it is fair to say that I am angry at everyone (feds, congress, MT, obama, salazar etc.)

      • Savebears Says:

        I have filed numerous FOIA requests with the agencies involved in hazing over the years, it has to say, not been very productive…I started way back around 96 trying to get information from these agencies….Wildlife services as has been noted on here many times is impossible to get information out of, MT DOL basically tells you to shove it and APHIS turns you over to other agencies who in turn refers you back to APHIS! it is a real circle jerk exercise..

  17. Alan Says:

    “……“peasant” service jobs around Yellowstone…..”
    Really?!
    Sounds like a comment from a “land baron.”

    • wolf moderate Says:

      I think he means low paying seasonal work but could be wrong.

      • Alan Says:

        Kind of like working on a ranch. Plenty of money for the owners and OK for a few full timers, but most everybody is, ahh, low paying seasonal work.

      • Salle Says:

        Low paying seasonal work is just about all there is in the gate communities, unless you are landed or wealthy or both. In winter only those who hold park permits for oversnow travel have regular business and not much else happens with other businesses because the permit holders have motels and restaurants and gift shops so the tourists don’t have to go anywhere other than the motel and the park or partner businesses like one or two other eateries… Most of the year round workers or those who live in these communities all year usually have to draw unemployment for however long they can since there is little or no other work until the park opens for regular tourism.

  18. Alan Says:

    What was the estimate that the University of Montana came up with? Thirty five million dollars a year brought into the local economy by wolf watchers. Wonder what kind of hit the local economy would take if it lost that? Top three reasons people visit the GYE: to see (1) grizzly bears, (2) wolves, (3) bison.
    Three species that should be treated like the gold that they are by the locals. Guess they figure that without them folks will still come here to see the cows? But I forgot, they just provide jobs for peasants, and they don’t count for much.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Alan,

      Could you send link to the peer reviewed artilcle where the $35 million figure came from. I cited it for a paper once, but can’t find the link.

      Thanks.

    • WM Says:

      Duffield’s work was done for the initial EIS in 1994. Then it was updated a couple of years back. The use of the term “local economy” is misleading because most of the money goes to the big vendors that own concessions or provide goods and services. Think motels, lodge (owned by big corporations in the East like ARAMARK), gas stations (Chevron, Shell). How much of that money stays in the local economy – with the minimum wage jobs of those making beds, serving meals and pumping gas? I would like to see Duffield peel back the next layer of the onion and tell us about “what constitutes the local economy and how much stays in the NRM states?” When the dollars get allocated out it really is not that much for each state or the people who work in so called “wolf tourism.” It is a bullshit argument and people need to recognize that.

      • Salle Says:

        Actually, most of the gas stations are franchises, therefore, the owners of each individual station ~ especially those with convenience stores and Subway Sandwich shops do pretty well and that money goes into the local economies, also many restaurants in the gate communities are individually owned, even the McDonald’s in West Yellowstone is a franchise. then there are the bars, pretty well filled during both summer and winter park seasons. I know the grocery stores are also individually owned as are the mechanic’s shops and catering services… not to mention numerous other small businesses around the park that go un-noticed until you actually use their services. Sure there are some corporate hotels but there are many more mom&pop places that are usually full in the summer.

        AS for wolf watching as a specific, there are quite a few, especially in the “shoulder” seasons because that’s when the wolves are most visible and active…. I know of several who come and stay in park gate communities for up to a month and specify that they are there to watch wolves, any other species ~ bears, bison ~ is considered a bonus.

        You know, unless you actually live in one or two of these communities for a few years, you have no idea how it works.

        And, do you a citation for your “bullshit” claim?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Well, if wolf tourism means the West becomes Jackson Hole, I’ll become an anti-wolfer lol.

        Are these artists full time residents or seasonal? If they are seasonal, they take the bulk or there profits out of the “local economy” eventually. It seems that the $35 million claim is bogus as WM said. It’s really easy to spin numbers and I suspect that’s going on here.

        Trying to recreate the “wolf tourism” experience outside of YNP is a tough sell. Not sure if it’s possible for it to be viable. A lady out of Hailey (I think) tried it, but didn’t work. Salle will correct me on this i’m sure. Thanks in advance.

      • WM Says:

        Salle,

        I know enough about input-output economic modeling, corporate structure for franchises, federal government vendor procurement (like the folks who run the big lodges, food concessions etc. in the Park) and who really owns the money maker businesses, as well as who takes the low wage jobs, to make a pretty intelligent guess. That is why I suggested the Dufield do a little more detail work to give us the answers with some specificity. Then we will have the citation you seek. Maybe I will be proven wrong. In the meantime, I will stick with my earlier conclusion.

      • JB Says:

        I am not sure if folks will have access Duffield’s article on the George Right Forum, but I encourage you to read it before you actually make a judgment: http://www.georgewright.org/251duffield.pdf.

        WM: I’m not sure what to make of your claim that Duffield’s estimate is “bullshit”. Let’s take a look behind the curtain to see exactly how they came up with this figure:

        First, they estimated the amount that people spend both while in the Park and while in the tri-state area. This varied from $117 for residents in the summer, to over $700 for non-residents in the summer.

        Next, they estimated the number of people that came to the park specifically to see wolves. This estimate was derived via the following two questions:

        (1) “Was the possibility of seeing or hearing wolves one of the reasons for your visiting Yellowstone National Park on this trip?”

        (2) “IF YES, would you still have chosen to take this trip even if wolves were not present in the Yellowstone National Park?”

        They estimated visitation attributable to wolves to be between 1.5% and 5%, depending upon time of year. Based upon their estimates, and overall estimates of park visitation, they conclude:

        “In total, it is estimated that visitors coming from outside the three-state region, who are coming specifically to see or hear wolves in the park, spend $35.5 million annually.”

        – – – –

        Note, this is the same basic method that any tourist attraction would use to calculate its impacts on the local economy. It is equivalent to the methods that I have seen used to estimate, for example, the economic impact of certain types of fishing opportunities.

        By criticizing the research because they did not account for how much of the money “stays in the local economy” you are essentially holding them to a different standard than similar economic studies. At lease the way it was done allows you to compare apples to apples.

      • JB Says:

        I will add: I go to the GYE once every couple of years. I always eat at local restaurants and camp (or stay in a non-chain motel or cabin), though I generally purchase groceries at the larger grocery stores. The only thing I buy in the park is coffee and fuel.

      • Savebears Says:

        The one thing that concerns me with the 35 million number, there is essentially no growth happening in the gateway towns of Gardiner and West Yellowstone.

        I may be looking at it from a very simple point of view, but with that amount of money being infused, it would seem some substantial growth would be happening.

      • JB Says:

        But there has been tremendous growth in Jackson Hole.

      • Savebears Says:

        JB,

        There has always been tremendous growth in Jackson Hole, even before wolves were re-introduced, I don’t consider Jackson hole to be a good indicator of growth due to wolves.

        Jackson has been its own unique situation for many decades now..

      • JB Says:

        Let’s talk variance explained: Are you trying to tell me you are capable of gauging the % of growth that is due to wolves vs. other sources? Extrapolating from Duffield et al.’s findings (and assuming a linear relationship), this should be somewhere between 1.5 – 5% (the percentage of visitation that is attributable to wolves). I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that none of us our sensitive enough to detect such differences.

      • Savebears Says:

        JB,

        No, I am not. I said, I am looking at it in the simplest terms and I said, I don’t believe Jackson Hole is a good indicator of the economic impact that wolves may be having.

      • Salle Says:

        There are a number of differences in how growth occurs in Jackson compared to how it takes place in West Yellowstone. Jackson, ofr one has a lot of private land available in immediate proximity to the town where West Yellowstone is basically shaved out of the woods and is surrounded by public lands on all sides/perimeter. Not much can happen growth-wise in West given this factor and the politics of the “landed” in the town and surrounding “covenants” that regulate building and resource use, it’s why you see clusters of homes in the outlying areas. Cost of property is also a factor in West and Jackson, both out of most Americans’ league. that leaves the wealthy and “landed” in charge of what takes place. If you factor in the growth attitudes of those able to activate growth, you will find that there isn’t a lot of interest in growth as it has taken place in Jackson. Those who “have” are not interested in having competition or “company” in the ownership of business potential. Aside from the other residents who don’t want West to look or be like Jackson where nobody who works there can afford to live there. People who live in West want to live there because of the proximity to wildlife, forests and the fact that there are a couple times a year when all those tourists go home and leave the place relatively empty for the locals to enjoy.

        Personally, I would never consider living or vacationing in Jackson after having seen and enjoyed it before the Dick Cheney international airport was built and before all the restaurants went to “continental dining” time slots where you can only go to a sit-down meal when they decide it’s time to eat. Most in the area of West Yellowstone consider Jackson to be “Californicated” to the max and have little interest in going there and don’t care to see West “Jackson Holed”. Granted there are some who would like to see that but they are in the minority. West is a working class tourist town where regional locals can actually afford to go and enjoy their public lands and parks without going into major debt.

        http://www.publiclands.org/explore/quadrant_map.php?plicstate=WY&quad=wy_q7z2

      • Savebears Says:

        To be clear, I am not saying that wolves have not had an impact on the area in terms of business and economic influx, I just question how much. I agree with Salle, West is probably not a good indicator due to the reasons she pointed out, but I would expect to see some growth in Gardiner, which there really has been very little in the last 15 years. I have seen business go out to be replaced by new ones, but I don’t consider that growth, that is replacement.

        Again, Jackson is a world of its own, playground to the rich and famous just as Squaw Valley and Aspen are, they have tremendous growth without wolves, so I don’t think wolves have much of an impact on Jackson..

        I only visit Jackson, when I have a meeting to attend.

      • WM Says:

        JB,

        Just hold your horses. I did not say Duffield’s estimate was bullshit.

        My very critical comment about the $35M in Duffield’s estimate was limited to an assertion made by commmenters (perhaps Duffield himself, I can’t recall) that the (implied) ALL of the money REMAINS in the local economy. Some portion surely does not for the reasons I stated, above. The question is how much stays, and how much goes to corporate shareholders in the East. And do remember, the multiplier effect when a dollar stays in the local economy it gets re-spent several times over, thereby giving additional benefit, including jobs.

        I did not say the analysis was easy, but there are alot of questions the Duffield studies (or others) have not asked or answered. Yet we see here, over and overa again, blind assertions of LOOK HOW MUCH MONEY WOLVES ADD TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY!!!!! AND LOOK HOW MUCH MORE WOULD BE ADDED IF THERE WERE MORE WOLVES.

        Do you know for sure the restaurants you eat in are owned locally, or is it possible the owner is an absentee or a corporation, who files taxes in another state. I will speculate there are more than a few of those businesses in and around the GYE.

      • WM Says:

        JB,

        Not to belabor the point, but:
        ++The only thing I buy in the park is coffee and fuel.++

        Unless things have changed both fuel and coffee are sold by Park procurement folks and the vendors are nearly exclusively large corporate entities. So, your fuel and coffee purchases (as well as meals and lodging if you did purchase them within the Park) go to corporations in the East. The base payments for lease of government owned buildings in the Park go back to the federal government treasury. They don’t go back into the Park (at least that is my recollection and I don’t think that has changed).

      • SEAK Mossback Says:

        I agree that any analysis of the local benefits of tourism has to look at where the money flows after it comes in. A tremendous amount of money comes into this town from 5,000-10,000 fairly well-off passengers on vacation disembarking daily from cruise ships and walking down South Franklin Street lined with shops, some of which specialize in nothing to do with this area (like Columbian emeralds, etc.). By mid-September much of downtown is closed down and most of the workers and proprietors have gone south, some to the Caribbean where the same ships disgorge tourists all winter. Most of the tour guides, helicopter and float-plane pilots, ice field dog mushers, bus drivers, whale-watching boat drivers, salmon bake cooks & servers, etc., etc. have gone south or north and take much of their money with them.

        It definitely bolsters sales and property tax revenues, pushes considerable money into the local economy and provides tremendous opportunity for local kids who insulated from our high housing costs to find summer employment, but the average flow pattern of tourism dollars is not at all the same or retained as much as more year-round, local economic industries and activities.

        It was getting to be more and more of a sore point with residents because not only is the downtown area becoming a ghost town much of the year as year-round businesses are replaced by even more T-shirt shops (also by big-box stores elsewhere in town) but because of ever-increasing noise from float planes and helicopters taking people on ice field excursions — but we were told money was being made so we should just stay inside in the summer or wear ear plugs because we have all winter to be outside. Fortunately, the noise issue has been tremendously reduced with a switch to larger planes with quiet turbine engines (turbo-otters) compared with the former assorted obnoxious rattletraps.

      • Salle Says:

        SEAK,

        That’s pretty much the story in West when it comes to snowmobiiles in the winter there.

        And, merely for those who might be interested, snowmobile tourism is flailing at best in recent years so there isn’t much of that going on in West these days. A groomer operator for the snowmobile trails in Gallatin NF told me recently that they don’t know why they even bother to groom the trails more often than once a week because “nobody’s out there…” [to use them]. There are currently a some midwest farmers and some folks from Idaho there but other than the park visitors ~ who can afford $100+/day/person ~ for the experience, that’s it as far as snowmobile tourism. They may actually have more skiers in town this winter than snowmobilers. That would be a nice change.

      • JB Says:

        “My very critical comment about the $35M in Duffield’s estimate was limited to an assertion made by commmenters (perhaps Duffield himself, I can’t recall) that the (implied) ALL of the money REMAINS in the local economy. Some portion surely does not for the reasons I stated, above.”

        Then my very critical reply is that this is a ridiculous argument. How long does money have to stay locally for it to “remain” local? What is local–same town, township, county, state, the GYE? How do you track where one dollar goes after it has been spent in the era of paperless transactions? Are there reasons to suspect that tourist dollars collected from these visitors differ from those collected from other types of visitation?

        These estimates were derived by looking only at non-residents who claimed they would not have come were it not for the presence of wolves? That means $35 million (within measurement error) from residents outside of the tri-state area was spent in these states because of wolves. That’s the bottom line. The rest of this argument is silly, IMO.

      • Elk275 Says:

        There is a lot to read here and I do not have a lot of time. Gardiner was mentiion. Property values have dropped 40% in the last one year between Livingston and Gardiner. Property values have dropped in West Yellowstone and West Yellowstone is affordable for a middle class family. Salle you do not know what you are talking about.

      • WM Says:

        SEAK,

        Many years ago I knew people who owned an RV park on the Kenai in AK. It was open all summer. The seasonal operators were a contracted couple from Florida, and local high school kids were hired to mow the lawn between RV spaces, and keep the laundry, showers and common areas clean.

        The owners were from CA and WA. Not much money stayed in the community except property taxes, and nobody paid into the workers comp or unemployment insurance pools, since the high school kids were paid under the table and the managers were contracted in another state.

        Gotta wonder how much is different for businesses in the GYE communities.

      • JB Says:

        “Unless things have changed both fuel and coffee are sold by Park procurement folks and the vendors are nearly exclusively large corporate entities.”

        Yes, but of course the worker in the store who sold me the coffee and the attendant at the gas station have jobs because of people like me. Moreover, many of these folks are “seasonals” who pay rent, buy groceries, pay sales and income tax, etc. while they live in town.

        Again, how do differentiate a “local” dollar from a “non-local” dollar? And why is such differentiation only important when it comes to money spent by people who come to the park to see wolves?

      • Savebears Says:

        JB,

        I understand what your saying, the problem is, the local people as well as the state have had it told to them, the wolves have been a financial benefit.

        How would you define “Benefit”? Most people I know define benefit as more jobs and continued growth, if the majority of the money is not staying in the markets it is being spent in, then the perceived benefit is not much.

        That is the question many have, are the wolves benefiting the economy?

      • WM Says:

        JB,

        You are missing the point. Duffield is the one making the statement about “local” economy and then using the term interchangably with “regional” economy. Some here make the inductive leap to conclude it stays in the “local” economy, whatever that is. I submit it does not, and raise the issue of the money going even broader to “national” economy.

        My point is to get people who hang their hat on this $35M number related to wolf viewing, becuase it is asserted as an incremental increase according to the study, to think about what it means and what it does not mean.

      • WM Says:

        SB,

        You raise an interesting question about “benefitting the economy.” I just looked on the IDFG website that tracks non-resident elk tag sales. Some units by this time of year are completely sold out. Bad publicity over wolves (along with bad economy and increased tag/licence costs are also likely to blame) have these sales way behind historic trends. Good example is the Lolo Unit.

        Query whether the loss of non-resident elk tag revenues and all the other hunting related expenditures (gas, motels, groceries, booze, hunting equipment, etc) by non-residents who are not buying tags and coming to ID this year should be deducted from the gross $35M increase in recreationnal revenues from wolf viewing in Yellowstone?

        Should we not be looking at NET benefit to the economy when we look at these numbers?

      • Immer Treue Says:

        WM,

        Don’t mean to put gas on the fire here, but…Everytime the Lolo elk are brought up, and I know they have been discussed on this forum, but did the Lolo elk population not show significant decline, close to 70% prior to wolves having a sharp impact on their number. I’m not saying wolves do not have an impact on current Lolo elk, but do historical tag sales reflect this overall downward trend in Lolo elk numbers?

      • WM Says:

        Immer,

        Just to diffuse the Lolo “gas on the fire” example I will just refer you directly to the summary chart. By this time of year at least a third of the units will be sold out. Some have sold out by the end of December, just days afte they go on sale. First to go, from my recollection were Sawtooth, Salmon, Dworshak and Elk City.

        http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/licenses/quota/nrquota.cfm

        Back to the Lolo, I don’t recall how much of the quota is sold by the time season starts, but for now just two A tags have been sold and 20 B tags out of a total of about 200 for each quota. The designation A or B has to do with early or late season and whether a spike or a larger bull or cow may be taken during the season. By the way, these statistics are updated every week, so they are very current.

        IDFG license and tag revenues are hurting big time. And frankly, I don’t know how much is attributable to wolves, the economy generally or to the fact that IDFG got greedy and tag prices went up two years ago.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        WM

        That’s fine. Wasn’t looking for a debate, just looking to learn.

        Thanks

      • Immer Treue Says:

        WM

        I know that seasonally, entry permits to the Boundary Waters in MN are on a downward trend, and it appears attributable to aging Baby Boomers, who flooded the area in their prime, but are just getting older, and their kids aren’t as inclined to go on these type of trips.

        You hear one individual argue that hunting licenses are increasing, and others say the numbers are decreasing. The ***little I’ve researched***, it appears overall down just a tad. Are overall hunting numbers being affected by aging Boomers?

      • Alan Says:

        Any money spent in an area benefits the local economy. It doesn’t matter (much) whether it’s spent in a corporate store or a locally owned shop. Wal-Mart and Costco are probably the two biggest retailers in Bozeman, both owned by out of state corporations, but they both employ a whole bunch of local people and they both pay local taxes (as do their employees). These may be “peasant” jobs, but the fact is that folks are pretty happy to have them. In fact, the largest single employer in Montana is Albertson’s.
        They are an out of state corporation, nobody is going to get rich working for them (at least HARDLY anybody), but I doubt that anyone is ready to boot them out of the state. These days, in a global economy, who knows WHO you are working for? Even many of the local ranches are owned by out of state hobbiests or corporations, but they still employ locals. There are a heck of a lot more “peasants” in the Northern Rockies than there are “land barons” or small business owners, and those “peasants” need jobs, whatever the source.
        As far as Gardiner growth is concerned, one reason it hasn’t grown much is because, let’s face it, 90% of the country’s population lives south of Yellowstone. That means that during the busiest time of year (summer) most tourists are driving in from the south. Jackson and West also have “real” airports. One thing about Gardiner though: Prior to wolf re-introduction Gardiner would pretty much shut down, go to sleep, hibernate, every winter after hunting season. See ya in the Spring! Now it at least lives, if not thrives, pretty much year around.

      • JB Says:

        “You are missing the point…Some here make the inductive leap to conclude it stays in the “local” economy, whatever that is. I submit it does not, and raise the issue of the money going even broader to “national” economy.”

        Oh that point was loud and clear. My point is that you have created a double standard for money that comes in via “wolf tourism”. And, perhaps more importantly, one that would be extremely hard to evaluate. What about locals residents who spend money at these same businesses (i.e., those owned by out-of-state companies); should these figures be subtracted from economic assessments?

        “My point is to get people who hang their hat on this $35M number related to wolf viewing, because it is asserted as an incremental increase according to the study, to think about what it means and what it does not mean.”

        What it means is pretty straightforward. Thirty five million dollars were spent in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming because people came to see wolves. End of story. All of this talk about where money was spent is simply an attempt to downplay the benefits of wolves.

        You asked if we should look at the “net” benefit provided by wolves. Of course! Idaho recently estimated the effect of wolves on elk hunting at between 7 million and 24 million. The methodology they used assumed that ALL MORTALITY caused by wolves was additive, AND that this mortality would cause a (linear) loss of hunting license sales.

        FYI: IDF&G did not calculate which dollars were retained by locals and which went to big, out-of-state corporations when they conducted their economic analysis.

      • SEAK Mossback Says:

        Regarding Gardiner, it was not always dead in the winter before wolves. During the period between the elk reductions and the wolves, when the elk population was large and moving out of the park, the late hunt was distributed over a substantial part of the winter with hunters who drew permits assigned certain weekly periods. Many were from other towns and booked hotel rooms and ate in local cafes while in the area. I have friends who run a motel and others who run a bead and breakfast and both did well in the winter during that period. The bead and breakfast owner believes they had more winter business then than now, although that is probably due to the wolf watchers tending to stay in different places. I’m not saying that is anything like the whole equation, but there has definitely been some economic trade-off there.

      • WM Says:

        Alan,

        ++It doesn’t matter (much) whether it’s spent in a corporate store or a locally owned shop. ++

        Actually, it does to some extent. Many of us have watched Walmart, Walgreen Drug, Costco and the box store hardwares come in and run the little guys out of business in smaller communities. Walmart, especially has now targeted medium size communities and is driving everything from independent clothing and sporting goods stores, and paint stores to jewelers out of business. So in exchange for a middle class of business owners -yes owners of something more than a frame shop, knick knack shop or corner coffee barista place are now gone, and are becoming a rare breed in America anymore. In their place you now have low wage checkers, stockers and a few so called middle managers. How many of them support local kids sports teams or make a moral contribution to our communities. Yeah, I shop Costco too, but feel guilty when I do.
        ——-

        JB,

        It is not a double standard for the wolf tourism. If I understand the Duffield study (to use a term we have before here) this new contribution is additive. I will also add that wolf presence does have some negative economic consequences through the possible displacement or reduction of some hunting AND if a big motel gets a wolf watcher, does that mean a smaller independent motel doesn’t get a couple weeks of hunters, or a butcher shop doesn’t process wild game. And maybe the geographic distribution of the economic winners and losers is different.

        It is not as clear cut and just additive as you suggest, JB. It is alot more complicated than that, and outside a NP I don’t know that wolf tourism is going to catch on that much, but with a growing wolf population the elk hunter revenues-from licence fees to purchases as previously described – will be reduced. Again, the net contribution to the economy is the important part, in my view.

      • Alan Says:

        “…It doesn’t matter (much)…”
        “…Actually, it does to some extent…”
        How do those two statements significantly differ?
        I know all about how the Wal-Marts of the world can and do drive small shops out of business. My point was simply that, to the average joe or jane who needs a job, it doesn’t matter if they are working for Wal-Mart or The Local Yokel Five and Dime. In fact, despite their poor reputation, the benefits and job security are probably far better at Wal-Mart; and I know they are at Costco. In addition, these out of state corporations likely dump far more money into the local economy in the form of taxes and donations than most local small businesses. Doesn’t mean I like it, but it’s reality.
        Plus, as Salle pointed out, a lot of the “corporation” businesses in the gateway communities are in fact franchises with local owner-operators.
        Bottom line: We can’t simply dismiss money spent at chain stores; hunters, ranchers, fisherman, campers and you and me all shop at these places too. Shut down the chains and you pretty much have ghost towns.

      • Savebears Says:

        I don’t think that Bozeman, Billings, Missoula are going to become ghost towns if Wal Mart left, and unless something has changed Jackson does not have a Wal Mart, at least they didn’t last time I was there..and they don’t have a Costco.

        When it comes down to it, Wal Mart and Costco has little to do with this train of this conversation..

      • JB Says:

        It IS a double standard. You are being hyper-critical of money derived via wolf-related tourism, but refusing to apply the same standards elsewhere. So let’s look at the claims made about negative impacts on elk hunting. I’ve never once heard anyone ask what percentage of elk hunting-related revenues remain “local” versus…whatever (I still would like you to explain how an economist might go about determining this, btw). If the question is relevant of wolf tourism, why isn’t it relevant of tourism generated by elk hunting?

        Let’s dig a bit deeper: Idaho’s estimates of the economic impact of wolves on elk hunting do NOT take into account the fact that the majority of hunting is done by residents of the three states in question. This is important because, whereas the Duffield study documented dollars specifically brought to the GYE from outside MT, ID, and Wyoming, Idaho’s economic analysis treats money from in and out of state the same. Yet, in the absence of hunting, state residents are likely to simply spend this money on something else (perhaps even other hunting opportunities) and thus, still contribute to local economies. Consequently, these monies are not necessarily “lost” because of wolves, but rather, they simply go to a different segment of the economy. In contrast, the method used by Duffield and colleagues documents monies that would NOT have been spent in the GYE were it not for wolves–these monies would, indeed, be lost to local economies sans wolf viewing opportunities.

        If you want to be hyper-critical, at least be even-handed about it. Apples to apples, that’s all I ask.

      • WM Says:

        JB,

        In two previous posts on this particular string of discussion I mentioned reduction in numbers of non-resident hunting licenses and tags in ID. That was the focus of economic impact that I was discussing. I also disclaimed twice it was probably tough to break out how much was the economy, changed fee structure or wolves.

        These revenues are pretty easy to sort out, and the dollars to generally quantify (I guess you could do a survey on it, and there probably have been some done in the past). There are quotas for non-resident licenses, and by definition a non-resident brings money into a state by virtue of the puchase of a license to pursue a particular species, in this case elk or deer. These licenses are spendy in and of themselves. License = $165; elk tag $464; deer $200. MT and WY have similar quotas and fees for this privilege, and I believe they are higher. I do not know what impacts are showing to their non-resident sales.

        These (let me say again because you seem to have a mental block on this point) NON-RESIDENT hunters also make other purchases in the state during their stay. Some will stay in motels in or near where they hunt (these won’t be Park lodges in most instances). They will eat in restaurants. They will purchase groceries (if they camp out) and adult beverages. They will purchase gas and coffee (but probably not where you do in the Park). If they are successful in their hunt they may pay additional costs of processing meat. These costs for a five to ten day stay might total near $3,500 -5,000.

        Then for some there are those outfitters that augment the hunting experience and charge for their services. I don’t care much for outfitters, either, beause I don’t use their services. They are locally employed, and if they don’t book hunts they don’t make a living, and that also means those who work for outfitters do not have jobs.

        As I said, two places above in this string, non-resident tag/license sales are down, in part because of wolves or the perception of wolf impacts on hunting success. This is displaced revenue – ALL OUT OF STATE $$$$$. It affects different folks geographically and by nature of trade, except maybe the gas and groceries part if the sales are to chain stores. The rural motels won’t get some of their fall reservations, the local meat packer won’t get as much business. And back to the license/tag revenues, those are direct dollars that go to the operating budget of the wildlife agencies, not some small percentage of tax on a purchase of goods.

        Again, these out of state revenue losses need to be backed out of a revenue number claimed for wolf tourism. And, I will submit as wolf numbers increase outside the Park the wolf tourism revenue will not increase in a linear function. BUT, the non-resident hunter revenue may continue to decline in the face of uncontrolled and increasing wolf populations because of actual or perceived negative hunting experience by non-residents (lower tag sales), and this may carry over to non-resident hunting as well (in which case I agree that there is just a re-direction of discretionary spending by residents from hunting to other recreational pursuits, most likely in state).

      • Alan Says:

        “…..Jackson does not have a Wal Mart, at least they didn’t last time I was there..and they don’t have a Costco….”
        You are right, but it does have a lot of chains. Ghost town if they all shut down and left? Probably not, but it wouldn’t help. You are also right that Wal-Mart and Costco have little (if anything) to do with this conversation. The point is that, whether you are a hunter or a wolf watcher, or a bird watcher or a geyser watcher, you are likely spending money at chains; and that that money DOES go into the local economy, and DOES provide jobs for locals. You can’t simply dismiss it, nor can you simply dismiss the (so called) low paying jobs that are created. Fact is that most people in Montana, Idaho and Montana work what could be considered “low paying jobs”.
        I don’t think that anyone would argue that towns like Gardiner and West Yellowstone could survive (very well) if Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks did not exist. No one in their right mind could possibly deny that these parks are huge cash cows; far, far more so than hunting or even ranching to the local economy. And the reason most people come to these parks, from all over the world, is to see grizzly bears, wolves and bison; and, yes, to a lesser degree, elk. But elk can be seen in many parks and forests around the country. They don’t spend tens of thousands of dollars buying t-shirts that say, “I Shot Me A Six Pointer!” with a picture of a gutted elk; nor do they spend tens of thousands more on postcards, mugs, plates, clothing, you name it, with pictures of the local cows.
        I recall many times photographing coyotes in Yellowstone, when a car loaded with tourists will pull up and ask, “What are you taking pictures of?” I will reply, “A coyote!” They scoff, “We have plenty of them at home!” and off they drive.
        My guess is that they have plenty of cows at home too.

  19. WM Says:

    Looks like the sh__ just hit the fan in a face off between RMEF’s Director David Allen and its new support of the Rehburg bill, while Montana Wildlife Federation supports the 2010 Tester bill that seems to have dropped off the radar since the 2011 introduction of more radical and decidedly shorter, less complicated bills.

    http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_b26667a4-373a-11e0-8ece-001cc4c002e0.html

    Quite honestly, I am shocked at the RMEF position, and I expressed this to one of the Regional Directors about two weeks ago. It appears Allen is pulling this crap on his own, without much consultation with the organization or its volunteer board advisors.

    Mike Post, if you are monitoring this can you confirm my conclusion?

    The 2010 Tester bill is science based (because it is based on the approved plans for ID and MT and requires them to manage for the numbers and in the manner contained therin), while still protecting wolves in WY under FWS stewardship. It has a five year sunset provision, which gives another chance to tweak the issue if needed. GEEZ whatever happened to reason.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Wow, that’s some heated rhetoric. Personally I do not really like MWF’s policies. I’ve always liked RMEF, but Allen is a bit too extreme for my taste. He will be put in his place soon…hopefully. The Tester bill is a pretty good compromise, but then again, now that the anti-wolfers have momentum they may not want/need to compromise. The time for compromise was so last year ;*), the tides have really turned.

      It will be interesting to see how things pan out. Personally, I think the most extreme measures against wolves will become law in the next year or two. Sad, but that’s what happens when you make a mockery of the judicial system. People/organizations will/have find/found “other” ways to get their plans enacted and that’s what seems to be happening now.

    • Bob Says:

      Just a question. There was a E-mail floating around that Testers bill had a rider to reimburse Defenders for their past compensation fund. Wasn’t able to find that rider.

      Allen the only land I own is stuck to the bottom of my boots.

  20. Nancy Says:

    +How would you define “Benefit”? Most people I know define benefit as more jobs and continued growth+

    Except for the fact SB that it seldom happens in states like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming unless there’s some sort of an attraction and real estate release of lands to an area such as Bozeman or Jackson Hole.

    I can recall going thru Bozeman close to 20 years ago and could get from one end of the city to the other in about 10 minutes. Now it takes a good road map or GPS.

    On the other hand, the town of Dillon still takes less than 10 minutes to get thru after 20 years, even with the addition of a new traffic light at Montana street (which brought the total of traffic lights up to two)

    The population decreased from 1990 to 2000 (3,700) and then had alittle jump from 2000 to the 2010 (now around 3,900)

    What’s telling and probably relates to many other cities and towns in these states, is the rural and urban populations.

    I bring up Dillon, as an example, because its near to me, has less than 4,000 urban and 85 rural (from the recent census) Urban – those that work and live in the town and Rural – those that own most of the land surrounding the town.

    New businesses come and go (replacements pretty much when it comes to the same buildings turning over) a stagnant economy that does nothing but prop up the 85 rural, who as I mentioned, own most of the land surrounding many of those cities, towns and……. communities.

    There’s always a big campaign to “keep it local” but very little incentive to attract new growth (as in jobs) or competition (as in jobs)

    Elk, SB – I know you both can relate to what I’m saying since you’re pretty familiar with this part of the country. Wisdom – stagnant. Jackson – stagnant. Wise River – stagnant. Polaris – stagnant. All those towns surrounded and going nowhere economically because they are surrounded by 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation ranch lands.

    “Sometimes you want to go
    Where everybody knows your name,
    And they’re always glad you came;
    You want to be where you can see,
    Our troubles are all the same;
    You want to be where everybody knows your name”

    • Savebears Says:

      Nancy, I can very well relate to what you have posted.

      Based on the study that is being quoted, there is 35 million dollars being spent, and there may very well be, but don’t tell me it is an economic benefit if it is not contributing to the economy. This is what the study was done for, to show the economic benefit to the surrounding communities and the tri-state area…

      If I am from Florida and spend money that ends up in Vermont, then it is not a benefit, it is pass through spending..

      • Savebears Says:

        I will have to get a hold of the state of Montana, I would be really interested in comparing summer employment numbers pre-wolf and post wolf…

    • Elk275 Says:

      ++Elk, SB – I know you both can relate to what I’m saying since you’re pretty familiar with this part of the country. Wisdom – stagnant. Jackson – stagnant. Wise River – stagnant. Polaris – stagnant. All those towns surrounded and going nowhere economically because they are surrounded by 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation ranch lands. ++

      Maybe that that is a blessing. As I said the other day the entire Paradise Valley has been divided up into thousands of parcels from 1 to 40 acres and originally sold on contract for deed. The Big Hole Valley is owned by a few families and there has been minimal subdivision of property. It is very important to maintain the ranches and prevent subdivsion. One of the reasons is stagnant ecomony.

      I know that you dislike 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation ranch ownership, there business models and atitudes. That is the way it is and I do not see it changing in the near future.

      There are a few tricks on getting through Bozeman quickly.

      Since Nancy mentioned Dillon, the Patigonia outlet store is going to have a huge sale starting on Wedesday, generally it is 40% below the lowest marked price.

      • Nancy Says:

        +the Patigonia outlet store is going to have a huge sale starting on Wedesday, generally it is 40% below the lowest marked price+

        Heard they were gonna move to bigger digs locally Elk (hence the blowout sale?) but I’d be willing to bet it won’t mean any additional jobs, just additional work for the employees already working there. Been there, done that in one of my former lives as a chef………. Once the hoopla and excitement dies down, employees are still faced with cuts in hours due to the seasonal ups and downs when it comes to tourists.

      • Elk275 Says:

        We have been talking about the economic benefits of wolf watching. I have always wondered what the economic benefits of the Patagonia store in Dillon was on the local economy. I though that it would be a good study for a business school class. One day I ask one the managers about this; the study has already been done, but the results are confidential. I do think that the outlet has had a various positive impact on the local economy, plus there are very good employee benefits.

  21. SAP Says:

    Recycling: this blog covered Duffield two years ago, almost to the date:

    https://wolves.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/wolves-are-bringing-tourists-and-money-to-montana/

    That blog entry has a link to Duffield’s paper in Yellowstone Science.

    PS: I love Jackson, WY! THREE great Thai restaurants (that’s how many you can find in all of Montana!) and some awesome sushi. Sure, it’s a little weird, and I don’t want to live there, but it is what it is. It’s highly unlikely that the rest of the West would ever turn out like JH, so don’t worry about that .

    • Savebears Says:

      SAP,

      There is two Thai restaurants, a Japanese restaurant and a Oriental Grocery store in Kalispell alone!

      • Savebears Says:

        I also know of two Thai joints in Billings as well at least one in both Bozeman and Missoula…

      • SAP Says:

        Sbears – thanks for the intel! I will have to get up Kalispell way and check them out.

        However, note that I said “great” Thai. So, these other Montana places will have to pass muster or Jackson will still reign supreme!

        The three I’m counting for Montana are the one in Helena and the two in Missoula.

        That place that used to be the Hippo in Bozeman — I didn’t get past the front door there, because it was clearly still full of video Keno junkies from the Hippo days. And, it’s the dreaded hyphenated cuisine – Thai-Indian in this case. That generally means they do both poorly. 😉

      • Savebears Says:

        I am not a Thai fan, but one of my good friends, his wife was born and raised in Thailand, she knows were every freaking Thai restaurant on the western US is! When ever we travel, she writes us out a list of the various place to get good Thai food!

      • SAP Says:

        PS – for one shining moment in time, we actually had a Thai place here in Ennis . . . oh, those were the days! Come in from a cold trip through the hills, sit at the bar and eat pad thai with chopsticks!

      • Elk275 Says:

        Save Bears

        There is only one Thai restaurant in Bozeman and it has been only open several months. I have never eaten there, it is on the corner of South 3rd and Kagy Blvd, next to the Sola Cafe.

      • Savebears Says:

        Elk,

        That was what I was saying, I know of one in Bozeman as well as Missoula, of course as I said, I am not a Thai fan, but I seem to get a list of them every time I travel somewhere..

      • SAP Says:

        Elk275 – there are two, I have not explored the one on Kagy but heard it wasn’t spectacular. As I said, I didn’t get past the door at the one on north 7th.

  22. Nancy Says:

    +I know that you dislike 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation ranch ownership, there business models and atitudes. That is the way it is and I do not see it changing in the near future+

    Elk – not a matter of disliking ranch ownership just disappointed in the special treatment – as in subsidies, low property taxes (compared to the rest of us) cheap grazing fees and WS babysitting their livestock, at taxpayer expense.
    And yes, Patagonia probably does have a positive impact on the local economy but I understand their clothing is made in China, so why the high prices?

  23. Barbara Bussell Says:

    I believe that the ranchers and the farmers have really done a snow job on the Senators. There has been proof that wild dogs are the ones killing the cattle and sheep. Cougars and bears. But there has been 0% of wolf kills. In Yellowstone National Park.
    Wolves go after the herds which are sick,weak,lame and the old. Wolves take very good care of the ecosytem. They keep the herds moving which allow the grasses and the trees to grow. Without the wolves the trees and grassess would suffer.
    Senators why don’t you go out and see what the wolves do for the environment. Instead of listening to some old fuddies tell lies. Do away with the wolves, then you will have to do away with the bears, cougars, wolverines, coyotes and whatever is left. Then you will have to go out and kill the overrun herds to keep the trees and grasses growing to stop the over population of the herds.

  24. Izabela Hadd Says:

    Just rerad a post on KSL.com
    http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14373218

  25. Immer Treue Says:

    Just a reminder, and thanks to W.H. Please call.
    william huard Says:

    If you call the Congressional switchboard at 1 202224 3121 and ask for a senator- most of them log down the topic on a computer and don’t care if it is their constituent or not. Most national issues like the wolf issue are important to all elected officials because it involves the ESA- just be respectful and they will hear you out


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: