Obama signs budget bill into law.

Wolves will be removed from the Endangered Species List in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah within 60 days.

Wolves to come off endangered list within 60 days
Associated Press

123 Responses to “Obama signs budget bill into law.”

    • Christopher Harbin Says:

      Salle,
      I’ve been thinking for quite awhile now that what is happening is a last power grab by the rich, white power movers and shakers. I have been kinda quite about this because it is easily excused as racism or rich vs. poor. A survey of the people who are pushing this agenda and those who are benefiting yields a large field of white.
      It almost embarrasses me to be a part that.

  1. Cody Coyote Says:

    Notwithstanding the Tester-Simpson wolf rider was a legislative cheat – a parasitic piece of special interest fiat that could not have been accomplished as standalone legislation – attention now turns to contrarian Wyoming.

    Governor Matt Mead is using a devious ploy now. He feels Wyoming’s delisting via Congressional fiat is only a matter of time now , no later than the term of the next federal budget debate when ‘they’ can always attach another blackmail rider , I suppose. ‘They’ being Barrasso or more likely Lummis .

    It hasn’t been made official in a public way yet , but Mead will be demanding that when Wyoming is granted delisting, it will be on some rigid terms. He wants to revert back to ~1987 wolf population objectives of no more than 10 breeding pairs or 100 animals outside Yellowstone Park , including the so-called trophy zone, instead of 15 packs and 150 animals.

    Wyoming G&F has already gone on record saying they will manage down to just above whatever number is mandated regardless, without much margin. Foolishly , since an outbreak of parvo or something else could easily drop wolf numbers into the mandatory Relist range….duh! Remember, any and all delisting comes with a 5-year probation period whereby USFWS monitors the state’s wolves and can step back in if numbers fall or other criteria aren’t being met.

    Will Mead , a lawyer who is also a cattle rancher (or vice versa) , acquiesce and allow Wyoming’s delisting to occur only if the state drops its ridiculous Predator Status in the 80 percent of the state away from Yellowstone and the trophy zone? Fair question.

    I would say probably not, Wyoming being Wyoming and all. But since neither Montana nor Idaho have a similar predator provision, Mead may have to cut a deal in the end.

    This will be interesting in the coming months , and I for one would not want to bet the ranch.

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Cody, I will be interested to see what Mead does with all of this. Wyoming could get delisting if they were trying to be responsible.

      By the way, I love your posts in the Star Tribune.

  2. jdubya Says:

    Well a Utah wolf is a dead wolf..I guess there is nothing new….Thanks Obama..

    • jon Says:

      You can probably thank Don Peay for that. Who are these people to decide what wildlife is allowed in their states or isn’t? I’m sure there is a good amount of people in Utah that want wolves in their state, but you have guys like Peay and his sportsmen for killing wildlife deciding they don’t want wolves in their state. How tragic and sickening at the same time.

    • JB Says:

      jdubya,

      Have there been any changes since the 2010 law passed? I caught the DNR director’s comment comparing the reintroduction to the resurrection of the T. Rex (talk about hyperbole), but wondered if there have been any recent substantive changes in policy?

      • jdubya Says:

        Nothing other than this legislative gem..

        http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/sbillenr/scr015.htm

        “”NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, urge the United States Congress to take action to maintain the
        integrity of the Endangered Species Act by exempting wolves from the Act in every state and allowing each state to protect its rural economies, game herds, livestock, and pets.

  3. Alan Says:

    “Remember, any and all delisting comes with a 5-year probation period whereby USFWS monitors the state’s wolves and can step back in if numbers fall or other criteria aren’t being met.”
    “..CAN step back in…”, that’s the catch. Who’s going to be doing the official counts, and how accurate can we expect them to be?

    • Alan Says:

      From the 2009 delisting rule:

      Montana and Idaho have committed to continue to conduct wolf population monitoring through the post-delisting monitoring period (Montana 2003, p. 63, 78; Idaho2002, p. 35). Montana and Idaho also have committed to publish the results of their monitoring efforts in annual wolf reports as has been done since 1989 by the Service and its cooperators (Service et al. 1989–2009). The Service and the National Park Service will continue to monitor wolves in Wyoming.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Alan, is the 2009 delisting legislation still valid due to the rider bill? I would think it is now irrelevant but I guess time will tell.

      • Savebears Says:

        Wolf Moderate, it is the exact same published rule that was rescinded by Molloy, the only new provision is the addition of not subject to review..but it is the 2009 delisting rule that was published that allowed the hunts in Idaho and Montana..Delisting is not legislation, it is a published rule by the Dept of the Interior. This was an order to republish the 2009 rule..

      • Savebears Says:

        To add, they will have to follow all of the same conditions as stipulated in the 2009 rule because it is the same, if they screw up, wolves could and most likely end back up on the list.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Well that’s a good safety net for the wolves. More incentive for the states not to F it up!

        Thanks for the info.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        “Delisting is not legislation”

        It is in this case. It’s definitely more than just rulemaking.

        “This was an order to republish the 2009 rule.”

        This was actually a law that incorporated the rule by reference. That’s why it is not subject to judicial review – because it’s no longer just an administrative rule, but an act of Congress.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        Normally though, you’re right – delisting is not legislation. It’s just administrative rulemaking that is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

      • Savebears Says:

        Dude,

        If they had wrote a new law and then attached, then you would be correct, but they didn’t, the simply directed the Dept of the Interior to republish the rule that had been previously published..there is nothing new, other than the no judicial review..

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        “If they had wrote a new law and then attached, then you would be correct, but they didn’t, the simply directed the Dept of the Interior to republish the rule that had been previously published..there is nothing new, other than the no judicial review..”

        But they did so in an act of Congress (the budget bill) that was then signed into law by the President. In effect, they did write a new law, albeit a very narrow one attached to a much larger law.

        Congress doesn’t just get to tell executive branch agencies what to do. They do so by going through the procedure of passing acts that are signed into law.

        If Congress could just directly control an executive branch agency without passing a law and having the President sign off first, there would be a separation of powers problem.

        This is because it’s the President’s job to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” whereas it’s Congress’s job to “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.” Some in Congress didn’t like the way the ESA was being “executed,” and their power to change this is by changing the law. They did this by adding the delisting rider to the budget bill. A rider is just a law that wouldn’t pass if it weren’t attached to another law that is more important.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_%28legislation%29

      • Savebears Says:

        Well Dude,

        I can obviously see, neither you or I are lawyers..we are talking based on our uneducated experience..

        So I will leave it at that, beings there at this point in time, there is nothing we can do about it..

      • Salle Says:

        I thought the Dude was/is a lawyer or someone who deals with the law professionally…

        While I’m posting, I also think that MT and ID will restrict any monitoring or thwart it outright so that their “official” population counts, not necessarily having much to do with subjective, scientific methodologies will be all that will be available, and those official counts aren’t likely to be honest by any stretch of the imagination. I’m certain that Idawhore will try this tactic until someone forces them to allow others to independently investigate.

        And here’s Max Baucus’ weenie-waver that I got this morning, it’s enough to make you puke:

        April 15, 2011

        Hi folks,

        This week we put an end to the hard-fought battle to delist wolves in Montana and return them to state management. It’s a huge victory for Montana and a common-sense solution that will give certainty to our ranchers, farmers and hunters once and for all.

        Since last August when District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled to return gray wolves in Montana to Federal management, the wolf issue has come up time and time again in my talks with folks all across the state.

        Montanans want this problem solved. No one, especially the federal government, knows how to better manage wolves than Montanans. We’ve proven it with a successful management plan and a successful wolf hunt. And that’s why, from the start, I vowed to resolve this issue for the people of our state and see it through to the end.

        The science is clear: With over 1700 wolves in the Northern Rockies, wolves are a recovered species. Don’t just take my word for it; that’s what scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service have determined. That’s why the Fish and Wildlife Service tried to remove Montana and Idaho’s wolves from the Endangered Species List back in 2009. The only problem was that without an approved management plan in Wyoming, the Fish and Wildlife Service couldn’t legally return wolves in Montana and Idaho to state management.

        My plan cuts through the red tape. It restores Montana’s ability to manage wolves in a way that works for ranchers, hunters and wolves.

        I’ve heard strong words of support from folks across the spectrum from the Montana Stockgrowers Association to the Montana Wildlife Federation.

        Errol Rice, Executive Vice President of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, tells me pushing this legislation through to the finish line is a real win for Montana’s family ranches, and it ensures Montana ranchers have the necessary tools to protect their cattle from wolves.

        And Tim Aldrich, Montana Wildlife Federation President, says this is great for Montana hunters and livestock producers. “For far too long we have been held hostage by litigation and political wrangling,” Tim says. “Wolves are recovered in our state. We have a science-based management plan, and Montana FWP is fully capable of responsibly managing wolves along with all the other wildlife that makes Montana the last, best place.”

        That’s why, for months I’ve been strongly urging Senator Reid to include my wolf provision in the budget compromise to fund the federal government.

        That’s just what he did. And yesterday, the President signed this into law. That means in 60 days, Montana will be rightfully back in control of our own wolf population.

        I’m so proud we got this done. By working together, we found a common-sense, Montana solution to an issue that matters to the people of our state.

        All the best,

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        “we are talking based on our uneducated experience”

        Speak for yourself. I don’t know how I can prove it to you if you have your mind made up that this isn’t a law. Case citations or something? This really doesn’t go much beyond “Schoolhouse Rock.” No offense intended.

        “at this point in time, there is nothing we can do about it.”

        True enough.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        That is a weenie waver. Max must think he shits sunshine.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        Save Bears –
        That being said, I don’t mean to imply that I’ve never been wrong before.

      • Phil Says:

        Salle: I love this comment from Tester, “My plan cuts through the red tape. It restores Montana’s ability to manage wolves in a way that works for ranchers, hunters and wolves.” I wonder why he did not mention that hunters can take revenge back on wolves in the message? Better for wolves? No. Better for those who dislike wolves? Yes.

    • Cody Coyote Says:

      Alan- nearly every known wolf pack in Wyoming ( but not Idaho) has at least one collard individual. When new packs for, USFWS and/or Wildlife Services tries to get a collar on them. It’s about the only time the agencies use non-lethal wolf management, put on the electronic tracking bracelets , since they can’t imprison the presumptive carnivorous felons.

      Because of the collars, the state game agencies, USFWS, and WS etc have a pretty good rolling census on NRM wolves. Uncollared wolves are a transient bonus for us wolf advocates because until they are ” reported” for depredations or such , they aren’t on the books yet.

      The dirty little secret of wolf management—which in Wyoming means wolf killing—is they can’t do it well or cost-effectively without the radio collars to track down the animals. Which begs the question: Are wolves fully wild if nearly all the packs are being tracked 24/7/365 ?

      Take away the collars and the wolves have a huge advantage.

      Which is precisely what I would like to see. I’m of the notion that no new collars should be placed on wolves that are not involved in livestock confrontations. Collaring problem wolves is a compromise we all can live with . Collaring wolves that never go near livestock is another issue.

      • william huard Says:

        Cody Coyote-
        Isn’t it true that wolf depredation is down ( I want to say down 20%) in Wyoming? I read that recently. I agree 100% on the points you make about collared wolves.

      • Cody Coyote Says:

        william—depredation by wolves on cattle is w-a-a-a-a-y down this past year in Wyoming. You can get a running tally of dpredations and wolves taken as ” control” at the FWS Grey Wolf website:

        http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

        – then clicking on the recent Wyoming Weekly Status Reports on the left side. Or just download the latest Annual Report there.

        Only 22 cattle and 33 sheep were confirmed to have been taken out by wolves all last year , in all of Wyoming ! That is infinitesimal. Half the ~35 wolves taken in Wyoming were removed from my county , Park, for incidents west of Cody in the ” Trophy Zone’ for their role in depredating < 15 cattle.

        Guess what ? Just my county alone has 52,000 cattle and 8,000 sheep, and the entire state of Wyoming has 1.6 million cows and about 350,000 sheep. It's hard to swallow the arguments from the livestock people that wolves are threatening their industry. Even by multiplying the known depredations by a factor of ten, wolves took a fraction of a fraction of a percent of all cattle losses.

        Are they serious and keeping a straight face when they say that ? Sheesh….

        p.s. If somebody from Wisconsin stars wailing about wolves being voracious beefeaters there, remind them of the 200 cows that died from eating rotten yams.

      • william huard Says:

        Thanks for the facts. One of the most disconcerting topics for me in our current state of political affairs is the fact that facts are unimportant or disregarded completely. Environmental issues are even more frustrating because the factual information is usually right there in front of peoples faces.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        william huard,

        Regarding the irrelevance of facts, in wildife politics. You are correct.

        Worse, facts no longer count in budgetary matters, health care policy, any kind of science. This “new” kind of politics cannot continue for long. If it does, America itself will be destroyed. We are being forced to literally sacrifice our livlihoods, indeed our lives, and natural world too on the alter of a half baked ideology.

      • william huard Says:

        Ralph-
        If you haven’t read the piece in the nyt on the environment that i posted today take a minute and read it.
        It is becoming apparent what issues the tea party is focused on. Lapage- “It is time we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs and Canadian Lynx.”
        Add tree frogs to the list of things the tea partiers hate. Who would hate tree frogs?

      • jon Says:

        Cody, what are your thoughts on Mike Jimenez being the wolf coordinator for Wyoming? Is he doing a good job in your opinion? I’m sure you’ve met him and talked to him a few times.

  4. Bob Says:

    Sorry but I have to say finally, yes the system works most of you seem to have forgot our system of checks and balance. No there is no wording of use of best science. Anyway I’am told we had the votes to pass a delist bill the hard way.
    Thank for sharing your world with me, I learned some and laugh a lot at the irony of how perfect is the wolf. Seems when a wolf kills a coyote and when it lays there and rots its nature at perfection, when a human kills a coyote and it rots its the great sin.
    Also a person can be good for helping animals and for treating a neighbor badly in public because he raises sheep.
    One can also comment on how there are to many people one day and the next whine about lack of health care for an old relative.
    A small joke for you all mostly we use it for rancher but today its for here.
    What is the difference between a wolf pup and a wolf lover?

    • jon Says:

      A wolf does not know any better. A human should. Nobody says the wolf is perfect. A lot of people want to protect them because they are a persecuted and hated animal that some would like nothing more than to eradicate Bob.

      • Bob Says:

        The wolf has never been eradicated, smaller home range, yes. Don’t mind the animal it is what it is right. This stops the wolf from being use as a tool.
        As for the wolf and me we both see the coyote as a fellow predator.

      • Phil Says:

        Bob: To endulge on your point “The wolf has never eradicated”, I would say you are correct when you put the specific name “wolf” into the mix using it as the widespread species, but as for some historic ranges in certain areas (such as the NRM region of this country, the Southeast and Southwest regions also), you are way off. From records, it seems as though EVERY wolf was killed in this country. I would believe that is eradication in America, wouldn’t you?

      • Bob Says:

        Phil
        Is america not a continent wolves do not know of mans borders. Like I said their home range was reduced.

    • william huard Says:

      Sorry there Bob, but people on this blog care about wildlife. Ranchers like you that show contempt for all wildlife but your shitcows have done more damage to the environment than ANY other special interest group. Your legacy is one of destruction. You would prefer to have a barren landscape with no wildlife to compete for resources that belong to all animals. We are on to you, and the party will be over for you soon.

      • Bob Says:

        william huard
        Sorry but when the snow leaves there will be more wildlife on this ranch than the surrounding public lands and it will be that way until the snow comes again. You can believe what or who you want but you don’t know shitcow. The wildlife will include wolves, grizzly, lions and what they eat. So get out the childish names and I’ll keep parting and enjoying the wildlife while you sit at your computer.

      • Phil Says:

        Bob: Yes, smaller home range is a problem, but that was not what wiped out the wolves. It was the large amounts of killing them off which took nearly a decade. You cannot blame the decrease in habitat range on the wolf being wiped off, because if that were true, then other species would have also felt the raft.

    • Alan Says:

      “….yes the system works most of you seem to have forgot our system of checks and balance…..”
      Yes, Bob, but what you seem to be ignoring is that this rider does not change the law. It weakens the ESA by creating a precedent, but it does not change it. What this rider does do is to say, essentially, “The court has said that our 2009 delisting was not in compliance with the law. Rather than change the ruling to bring it into compliance, or change the law so that the current ruling is in compliance, we are going to do neither. What we are going to do is re-issue the ruling unchanged and simply make it exempt from judicial review. Worse (possibly) yet, we will pick and choose which prior court decisions to allow to go forward (the Wyoming decision). We are going to do all of this by attaching a totally unrelated rider onto a must pass budget bill, without floor debate or an up or down vote.” All of this proves that your precious “checks and balances” do not work.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        “What we are going to do is re-issue the ruling unchanged and simply make it exempt from judicial review.”

        Yes, but they did that by creating a law that delisted the wolves specifically. Although it didn’t specifically alter the ESA, it’s still a law. Because it’s a law and not a rule, that’s why it can’t be challenged as a rule.

        “All of this proves that your precious “checks and balances” do not work.”

        No doubt. This was not something that was decided on the merits of the issue. This was legislative extortion. If this bill stood alone and was passed, it would be an example of checks and balances. But that isn’t the case.

    • White Wolf Says:

      Bob, your obvious gloating does not become you. A wolf can only be a wolf, there is no such thing as inhumane in the animal world. But as for man, man should know better because of his human intelligence and conscience. Which apparently are sorely lacking in this situation.

      http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/0610_2004_inhumane.html

      On a previous blog Harley has asked if anyone wanted to comment on why the wolf was so hated, unlike any other predator. And so I will re post this comment :

      The wolf is the most persecuted animal in history, even with protection. Wolves are not merely other predators, they are symbols and surrogates of deeper issues and wider conflicts. America’s landscape will suffer the travesty of an incomplete legacy if state management plans do not responsibly provide adequate concern for their survival.

      Barry Lopez states that we treat wolves differently than other predators. “ But the wolf is fundamentally different because the history of killing wolves shows far less restraint and far more perversity. A lot of people didn’t just kill wolves they tortured them. They set wolves on fire and tore their jaws out and cut their Achilles tendons and turned dogs loose on them. They poisoned them with strychnine, arsenic, and cyanide, on such a scale that millions of other animals were killed in the process.”

      Obviously, we are trying to silence something more than merely an animal whenever we allow this darker side of human nature to speak. It is here where we succumb to ignorance or apathy. To first judge, and then cull what we fear or do not understand. I have heard many an argument about how wolves kill their prey as being inhumane, yet it is man that is the true beast.

      The complexities and diversity of the situation go far beyond wolves. Symbolism behind any belief is a strong force not to be reckoned with. Our beliefs represent who we are and we defend them with all the passion within us. As a surrogate, the wolf is caught up within our inner and outer struggles, and challenges not only our acceptance, but also our compassion. Wolves dare to defy dominion, and are a constant thorn in the side of those who cling to the concept. How do you respect or appreciate an animal that you can not domesticate or use as food…? Once mankind viewed animals not merely as lowly beasts, rather teachers….guides, guardians and companions…a tradition as old as humanity itself. Even the ritual of the hunt was considered sacred, as they gave thanks to the animals’ spirit for their many gifts, while disrespecting the laws of the hunt were strictly taboo. Concepts that are completely lost within our tortured world of jagged reasoning….viewing everything we see as inferior, to be subdued….property.

      The early church declared the wolf an abomination, viewing him as the devil incarnate. The Europeans brought with them a robust loathing of wolves, they were seen as ” the essence of wildness and cruel predation, the ally of barbaric Indians, a creature of twilight.” Attitudes completely shifted against the wolf when we developed a dependency upon domesticated livestock which deemed humans and wolves…incompatible.

      The war against wolves has also been waged with words. There is also the wolf of our mind, the “big bad wolf” who has stalked our subconscious since childhood. Lurking in the shadows, symbolizing danger, an iconic representation of our worst fears. Folklore and fable has created a sinister creature with malicious intent preying upon innocence who is irredeemable and unscrupulous … unjustly personified as all things evil…an outcast of nature according to human society.

      Tragically, back to present day and the precarious future of an intelligent, sentient, apex species, viewed as inconvenient and expendable. Apparently, the wolf is still the ever present pariah and is not even worthy of protection. We all know what consequence this inflicts upon wolves, but what does this calloused disregard really say about us…?

      We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are. Woefully, the wolf will never find acceptance in the hearts and minds of those who loathe him, for whatever reason. I don’t have the answers, yet I am certain they are hidden somewhere beneath the layers of ego, greed, societal dysfunction and personal stories to be told. And it is there that we all must face our own demons and hopefully once again find our connection to all living creatures…and to our own place within the web of life.

      We are also equal parts dilemma and resolution, and have been entrusted to nurture and protect nature as tenants of the Earth and citizens of humanity. I urge everyone to see beyond themselves. And for all states to be open-minded, fair and humane in their hunting practices and wolf management.

      • Harley Says:

        thanks for your input on that question white wolf, if you answered it on the other thread, I didn’t see it.

        I try to look at things with as optimistic a view as I can get, so I may be waaay off base here, but I’m pretty sure the view of the church has changed. I can’t see that as being an influencing factor in this day and age in respect to how the wolf is treated. In the past, yes. Now? Not so much. I think I see most people(not all!) reacting more in protection mode based on facts they have learned rather than on the superstitious belief of the ‘big bad wolf’. I think that most hunters in this day and age know fully well that a healthy ecosystem is one that has predators. I would like to hope that people will not go shooting at every wolf they see just because they have been removed from the endangered list. I do not defend the idiot poaching fools of our society. I would like to think that most people will act with the good sense they have been graced with.
        I had also asked the question, but didn’t get too much of response so I’ll repost it here. When is an animal not considered ‘endangered’ anymore? In Minnesota, wolves are flourishing. I would not consider them endangered there but the state has a fight on it’s hands, has had a fight on it’s hand to delist them for quite some time now. What does the law say? When are the numbers high enough? What is the criteria for such an action?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Google “Turn in poachers” and you will see poaching is not a practice that sportsmen and women tolerate. As for the “church’s” influence these days, I just do not see that having any influence on environmental issues. I’m sure someone (Salle) will post some examples of how they are however! It would be great to know if, indeed they are…

      • Harley Says:

        There are always going to be fringe wackos out there I’m afraid. I can’t speak for all churches, I was merely making a guess. I know in the past though, whew! Yeah, they had a lot of influence on a lot of things. Actually… I think cats are more vilified than wolves, even though they are domesticated. I get sooo tired of hearing 101 uses for a dead cat. Make me want to smack the person who’s joking about it.

      • jon Says:

        Right now, the 2 biggest reasons why wolves are hated is because they eat other animals to survive and because rural americans in the west believe there is a conspiracy and that wolves were forced on them to kick ranchers off of public lands and to end hunting. This is a conspiracy that they believe is the truth. First off, no one should look at it as animals being forced on you. People should look it as animals are being reintroduced to places where they were wiped out by humans. I sometimes hear well, let’s put the wolves back all over and in the cities and wherever else, but the fact is you can’t. There are by far too many humans in america and most of the habitat that used to belong to the wolves is not longer there because of human overpopulation.

      • White Wolf Says:

        Harley, I was not implying that the church was an instrumental factor in this issue today. It was just a little bit of the wolf’s story through history, and the main reason why he is treated differently, as in ….wolves are not merely other predators, they are symbols and surrogates of deeper issues and wider conflicts. The big bad wolf still lives, granted not in the superstitious way. He thrives in concept, and is based in irrational fear. As for shooting any wolf just because they can, even protections did not stop those who defied law. I am counting on the good sense you spoke of and the fact that we have been far enough removed from ancient Rome when slaughter was seen as entertainment. I have no debate with true hunters who value the wolf’s presence in the ecosystem. I am not anti hunter, but I do not believe that killing just for the thrill is nothing but feeding a craving for power.

      • jon Says:

        I don’t believe that at all Harley. Cats more villified than wolves? You are entitled to your own opinion, but there is no doubt about it, wolves are probably the most persecuted animals in the world, certainly in the west. I’m sure there is some hate for the other predators like bears, cougars, coyotes, etc but they don’t come close to being hated as much as the wolf.

      • Harley Says:

        On that we are most assuredly agreed White Wolf. Killing just to kill, it kinda makes me sick. I think I can understand the skill that goes into patiently hunting something and the sense of pride in accomplishing what you set out to do. It’s not something I could do but I can understand a ligit hunter and that challenge.
        Here’s to good sense prevailing!
        *tilts water bottle in your general direction*

      • Harley Says:

        I dunno Jon… there are reasons why animal shelters will not adopt out black cats the weeks before and after Halloween. I think more people today equate cat with Satan. It’s difficult maybe to think of it in those terms because the cat is a domesticated partner. Many people can’t stand that independent streak. I suppose it does come down to opinion, I was trying to find facts to back up mine lol but the only think that I do know for certain is the adoption policies animal shelters have to follow in regards to black cats.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I think the coyotes are the most “persecuted” predator ever. They have coyote derby’s and the public doesn’t even bat an eye. You try and have a wolf derby and there would be so much outrage it would make your head spin…With good reason I will add.

      • jon Says:

        Black cats, I used to have people tell me if you see a black cat on halloween or friday the 13th, you’re going to die or something like that. It was one of these days. You have hear anything like this? There’s a lot of superstition with black cats.

      • Harley Says:

        Oh yeah! People are kinda ignorant sometimes. Maybe not all cats then, but most certainly black cats.

      • jon Says:

        wrong wolf mod, there are quite a few of people who despise coyote derbies and speak out against them. Some coyote derbies in some places were shut down because there was a huge public backlash about them. I do agree with you that coyotes are a persecuted animal.

      • White Wolf Says:

        Harley, 13 is my lucky number, and I love black cats. Although I once worked at a motel where they did not have any room number 13….skipped right from 12 to 14. They told me that people simply do not want to rent out a room with that number.

        Which brings me back to the topic of belief….which is also related to superstition. If someone thinks a black cat will bring them bad luck…it probably will. If walking under a ladder has brought you bad luck then you probably had a bucket of paint fall on your head the last time you did.
        Which simply means never underestimate the power of belief or experience. Smiles!

      • Ryan Says:

        “wolves are probably the most persecuted animals in the world, certainly in the west”

        Nooooo, Coyotes are, as far as shoot on sight.. To kill a wolf, you have to turn your cell phone off first. Not for this hillbilly though, I may let a coyote walk. I NEVER let a feral cat walk though.

      • Phil Says:

        Ryan: I guess it would depend on who you ask. I would agree that with the anti-wolf hunters wolves are the most persecuted (possibly until now), but with the resto of the citizens in the west, yes coyotes would be up there.

        What is it with Feral Cats that you dislike?

      • Mtn Mama Says:

        @White Wolf~ Right on eloquantly stated.

      • Ryan Says:

        Phil,

        Its simple, they are non native, they are amazingly hard on native wildlife, and they have no place anywhere beyond the backyard of their owner.

      • Ryan Says:

        “Right now, the 2 biggest reasons why wolves are hated is because they eat other animals to survive and because rural americans in the west believe there is a conspiracy and that wolves were forced on them to kick ranchers off of public lands and to end hunting.”

        Jon,

        That doesn’t seem to be too much of a stretch considering some of the biggest reintroduction supporters and outspoken advocates.. (this is your cue to look in the mirror)

    • Phil Says:

      Bob: “Wolves do not know man’s borders”. That is what I tell anyone who says these are not native wolves and they are Canadian imports.

  5. Bob Says:

    Answer: A pup will quite whining.

    • Salle Says:

      It’d be nice if you were actually smart enough to spell… Bob. Obviously you can spell your own name, all two letters, but your knowledge of laws and such matters shows the pride of the teabaggers; the dumber you are the more easily influenced by misinformation you are.

      • Bob Says:

        Salle
        Your right my grasp of spelling is poor. Yet I won’t reduce myself to you childish name calling. I also never mentioned law just how I believe our government still works. I always enjoy the claims of superior smarts and name calling when someone has a different view.

      • Salle Says:

        Well Bob,

        Maybe you could look at the back of a dictionary or some other guide, for those of us who remember what those books are (and I mention these as the most expedient source that you might have on hand), and read the part that explains how government, our government, is structured and the responsibilities that are delegated to each body of the system. Then make comments on how the government works. Maybe you’ll see the disconnect between what it’s supposed to be and what we now have taking place in the halls of government.

        Obviously you don’t appear to know when someone is not calling you names either.

  6. wolf moderate Says:

    “One can also comment on how there are to many people one day and the next whine about lack of health care for an old relative.”

    I have to agree w/ you on this one.

    • william huard Says:

      Don’t worry, the Sh^%&baggers and Republicans are working on that very thing.

    • Dude, the bagman Says:

      I have to disagree on this one. Health care and lower population growth would both provide a better quality of life than no health care and unlimited population growth. There’s definitely no shortage of humans on this planet, and there’s nothing wrong with taking care of those who are already here.

      I don’t see either the contradiction or the irony.

      • IDhiker Says:

        Clearly, the growth of the human population is the largest threat to wildlife, and as a result, to hunting and fishing activities. Anyone who thinks we can have this growth and maintain the outdoor opportunities we are accustomed to, has their head in the sand. The loss of habitat, and the constantly increasing exploitation of lands to feed and serve this exploding human population will be the demise of big game hunting as we know it. It’s a dream to think that we’ll have elk hunting opportunities for thee months every year, as we do now in Montana, well into the future. Heck, the Western Montana county I live in has had it’s population more than double in the last twenty years.

      • IDhiker Says:

        I can remember, as a kid, fishing with my grandparents in Northern Wisconsin lakes. In a good day, we’d fill an oil drum with fish. Obviously no thought for conservation in those days. But, when visiting the same areas today, the same lakes are surrounded by vacation lake front properties, and boats all over. Not surprisingly, although there are still fish, there’s nothing like there used to be, and the average size has declined. Channels and bogs where you’d see many large bass swimming below, are now empty. The Wisconsin firearm deer season lasts nine days. But then, compare the human population of Wisconsin with that of Montana and you’ll see the reason.

      • Salle Says:

        Therefore, the “just go shopping” theme is not a sustainable practice….

        ;-P

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Southern Wisconsin as a 9-10 year old we would hit lake Delevan and easily get 100 crappy in a day. Not so anymore. Canadian trips I’d get a conservation license and barbless hooks, and I was looked upon as one of “those”. Now in Northern MN, the DNR has finally gotten their act together in terms of limit and size on Walleye and Pike. It is not sustainable.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Immer,

        I have read on many blogs on the interwebs that during the 80’s a very sick individual that hates fisherman dumped Canadian Crappie into the ponds and lakes around Wisconsin. Damn these Canadians and there freakish fish n’ wildlife!

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Wolf Mod,

        I’m talking the early 60’s man, before there were any of those old Canadian crappies.

      • Woody Says:

        About two more people per second.
        http://galen.metapath.org/popclk.html

  7. Rita K.Sharpe Says:

    Bob,I have learned alot on this forum and read some interesting reads from people on here,too.As for the wolves killing coyotes and leaving it,the bottom line is coyotes are competition and scavengers.Lions and cheetahs are pretty much the same way and it is pretty much the same between with the painted dogs ,hyenas,and lions,in Africa, for they all fight each other in order to either take it or keep it..People are supposed to be reasoning and have some control.We are constently ruled or runned by our emotions.We are supposed to know what is the right thing to do and what is not.For me,poaching ,shooting a animals while driving down a highway,and even shooting into a herd of elk with no intentons of eating it but just to see how many can I get or just to see if one can get by with it; it’s,a crime.As for government,it the backroom deals that no one seems to care for.

    • Harley Says:

      I… could be wrong. I know there are a lot of idiots out there but most of the hunters I’ve talked to consume what they eat. Also, a rancher killing off a wolf after his stock is also killing due to competition in a way? I know ranchers are not popular people on this forum along with farmers and most hunters so I am probably taking a risk at pointing that out.

      • Rita K.Sharpe Says:

        Harley,Everyone can talk here,I don’t bite just nibble.Yes,I have known hunters who hunt to help fill the freezer,but those were not the ones I was talking about.As for the rancher,everyone has the right to defend their property ,including themselves.My response to Bob.is that when wolves kill coyotes,it is nature,they are in competition for food and space..Wolves ,generelly.do not eat coyotes .You have the same thing over in Africa between the lions and cheetahs.I don’t like wanton killing. I better stop now for my spelling or typing is going south.

    • Bob Says:

      Rita
      I won’t say I thought how it was done was right, like I said word was we had enough votes to do it right. That said I’ll take it as is. I also agree about poaching. Also understand competition I live it each day on all different levels. Does it matter to the coyote and who feeds on him who killed the coyote?

  8. Immer Treue Says:

    Cody C,

    Not to slight the damage done, but confirmed wolf live stock depredation in Wisconsin totaled 75 at about $114,000. Not chump change my any stretch of the imagination. In the same breath, deer cause over a million dollars worth of agricultural damage in Wisconsin.

    So as this won’t be looked upon as a red herring point, if one looks at a county by county breakdown of deer auto collisions in Wisconsin, in terms of WDNR salvage records, they are down statewide. All the clamor about wolves as a threat to people, one must look at the advantage of having wolves. In reality ( pun intended here for those who get it) wolves have most probably prevented driver fatalities and have helped the WI insurance companies.

    • JEFF E Says:

      altered reality

    • Nancy Says:

      Curious, why is it the ranching industry is not required to carry insurance on their livestock?

      • Rita K.Sharpe Says:

        Good queston.

      • Harley Says:

        I’m guessing that the insurance would be too costly to cover the amount of livestock they raise and would force the price of the meat up? I don’t think farmers take out insurance on their crops either. Farmers and Ranchers are kinda at the mercy of mother nature. It’s kinda like a gamble against mother nature, sometimes that how I see it anyway.

      • Salle Says:

        And if pone gets out on a dark road, like US30 on the way to Kemerer, WY, (for example as I have actually had many “close calls” out there), and you hit one the rancher can sue you for the damages to their livestock that they don’t tend to care much about unless someone kills it. And especially if you are a commercial driver, they will claim that the dead cow was worth 10 times its actual value.

      • Salle Says:

        Harley,

        It’s more like they aren’t required to insure the livestock, though some actually might. Many farmers do have insurance on their crops, those who can afford it. Do you think the insurance industry would miss a huge market like that with so many ways to profit from all that? Just asking.

      • Salle Says:

        Interesting though, another industry that could fall into that category, but doesn’t because they are required to carry tons of insurance, thus putting most small operators out of business, are the trucking industry. You have to insure the trucks(s), the drivers, the business itself and the freight they haul, all of it.

      • Harley Says:

        I think my relatives must not have been able to afford it. I had some farmers in Minnesota. They are ‘retired’ now though.
        I think if ranchers and farmers would be ‘required’ to carry the insurance, I think the result would still be the same, prices would go up. lol I can’t speak to that with any certainty though. Just a speculation. And for the record, I can’t abide those huge farming operations that have been putting the smaller family farm out of business. When we go to Iowa to visit relatives and friends, those HUGE hog places are just horrible. The stench is unbearable. And now my cousin has to find something else to do because hog farming isn’t profitable anymore. Again… I kinda feel like the tiny sheep amongst the wolves because I know many here are so against ranching and farming but it’s a part of my heritage in a big way, even though I’m not one of those.

      • Salle Says:

        Harley,

        The anti-ranching sentiment here is based on the megaranches, hobby ranches and idiot ranchers ~ primarily the public lands permit holders who think that mother nature sees them as the favored child and that the public part of the public lands means them and not public lands recreationists… those who don’t hunt that is. I think that the farmers in Iowa and MN generally don’t graze their cattle in the public’s forests where the predators usually hang out. Much of this sentiment is derived from the fact that going into the woods in the NRM areas often means dealing with biting insects that come with livestock, cattle feces everywhere – including camp grounds, cattle destroying riparian zones (marshy wetlands and vegetated stream banks by trampling them to mucky wastelands, fouling stream waters and basically causing environmental degradation for miles upon miles… all for pennies a day at our expense. And then they have the gall to cry wolf when they leave their cattle unattended and a predator comes along and eats some of them, and maybe the livestock died from weather related issues, diseases, or some other cause of death but turn out to be a serendipitous pile of food for a predator. Out here, in the western states, they used to shoot coyotes and hang them on the fences in order to “teach” the other coyotes what will happen to them if seen.

        That’s the level of mentality that is part of the custom and culture of ranching in these parts. I, personally, don’t hate ranchers because they’re ranchers, or hunters or farmers, I don’t hate them. they have a lot to learn about the biosphere, its health and why it matters – because it affects my health and well-being for starters. And I don’t like the manner in which they do business or how they (actually, how they don’t) tend to their livestock, nor do I care for the millions in subsidies they get from us, the taxpayers…

        This Tax Day, ‘Farms’ Owned by the Rich Provide Massive Tax Shelter

        http://www.thenation.com/article/159943/tax-day-farms-owned-rich-provide-massive-tax-shelter

  9. IDhiker Says:

    Salle,

    I received the same message from Max Baucus, and this after I had written him and called him numerous times regarding the wolf issue – and totally disagreeing with him. Actually, the last two times I wrote Max, he sent me the same, word for word response.

    Whether Max and Jon have made a good, for them, political move, it remains to be seen whether the bulk of the ranching, hunting community will vote for them anyway. Surprisingly, even though it seems they would be hunting themselves, the majority of hunters vote Republican.

    • IDhiker Says:

      I meant “hurting themselves,” but, then again, maybe hunting fits, too.

      • Salle Says:

        Ha! Maybe so… one can only hope. I never really ever trusted him anyway. I figured out where his pocket gets lined back in the 1990’s when protesting the IBMP for the Yellowstone bison. Speaking of which, I went into the park this morning to see what was going on… LOTS of dead and dying bison, especially visible around Old Faithful, looks like the remains of some great battle with all the skeletal remains and heads on the ground with fur still attached. Got up to Lamar and saw three wolves near an elk carcass they were said to have killed this morning, and lots of eagles all over the park. Most of the elk and bison looked pretty winter-weary except in the thermal areas where there is some green stuff growing in some places already-mostly around Mammoth and parts of Lamar.

  10. White Wolf Says:

    Jon, wasn’t there an issue in Maine, I think, where they stopped coyote derbies too due to public outrage, at the Governor’s dictate…?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I didn’t realize that Cabelas sponsors these derby’s. That is ridiculous.

      • Salle Says:

        Perhaps you mean horrendous… a much more appropriate term. Gosh WoMo, I thought you already knew about Cabbies’ backing of this lovely “sport”.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        No I didn’t. I don’t follow coyote derbies…They should be banned.

        Going to Cabelas to get a new sight for bow and I’ll be sure to let the mgmt know how I feel about it. It makes them look horrendous🙂

      • Alan Says:

        Wolf Mod, why don’t you go elsewhere to get your sight? Might be a more effective way to tell Cabela’s how you feel. Then you could write them and let them know why they lost your business.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Well, for one, I think talking to mgmt face-to-face would be more productive than an anonymous letter (they would probably write off as some animal rights nut just acting like a customer anyway) and two, Cabelas has excellent customer service and also there return policy is top notch. I’m a frequent shopper and they will take my suggestions seriously, though they do make a metric azz load of money off of the predator hunters so who knows…

      • Alan Says:

        I was in retail all my life. Trust me, talking to the store manager about corporate policy will do you no good. He (she) will just nod politely and tell you they will pass it on. I never said anything about an “anonymous” letter. By all means sign your name and send along photo copies of previous purchase receipts, and demand a response. Tell them exactly how much you spend in their store. Send it to Cabela’s corporate HQ, 1 Cabela Dr Sidney, NE 69160 Att. Thomas L Millner, Chief Executive Officer. Send copies to your local store and regional or district office. That is, unless you’re just blowing smoke about finding this “horrendous”.

    • Phil Says:

      I thought Governor Otter and the F&G also sponsored the derby? I have know about the derby since Jan of 2010, but I thought I read that the F&G and Otter were also in on it.

      wolf moderate: While I applaud your reaction to Cabela’s being a sponsor, I don’t think you are taking proper actions in showing your outrage to Cabela’s. It’s like saying “Yes, I will buy your product and help keep you in business, but I am severly angry at your services.” I have been a loyal customer to GM for more then 5 years now leasing two cars from them and never missing my payments. I had supported them through the worst times of the company. My lease on my last car (Pontiac G6 GT) was nearing its end in late Feb and I tried to lease another car from the company. Sadly they no longer have Pontiacs so I went wth a Chevy. Three different times I was turned down because in leasing a Chevy Malibu. My preference was to not spend more then $250 a month on the car with no money down with a few other stipulations. As I stated, I was turned down each time. The biggest problem was not being turned down (even though it angered me), but that they were not treating me with respect of loyalty that I had shown to the during their dark days. While I was waiting on whether or not I was approved for the car, I had not heard from the sales rep or business manager of the two different dealerships that I went to. Eventually, the following day I called them on details of my application as to where they said I was turned down, but I would be approved if I put $1,425 down. To shorten the story, I eventually went to Ford and leased a car that very day in which GM took more then 3 weeks in the works. If I were to do what you are going to do, I would have leased the car and put money into the company that showed no loyalty to a long and loyal customer, but only showing the affect to them through words and not actions.

      It is your life wolf moderate, but if you want to show true affects on Cabela’s due to their actions on the predator derbies, then purchasing their equipment and helping them garner money would do nothing more then just go in one ear and out the other without having it generated in their brains.

  11. White Wolf Says:

    Thank you Jon.

    Wolf Moderate, ridiculous does not begin to describe it.

  12. Redleg Says:

    I have been studying the wolf issue for some time as this deployment to Iraq seems to allow a lot of study time. I have enjoyed many of the arguements and have yet to solidify my beliefs/ opinions enough to argue them. For my first post as I have never posted before on a blog, which I don’t really know why, but I am preconditioned when people use “always” “never”, and “most”, to find the exception to “prove” their assertion false; or something like that. Which is usually an opinion anyway that is stated as fact. So I will state my opinion that I feel it is more probable that the house mouse and rat are an animal that is more villianized than the wolf with fewer supporters or defenders than the wolf. The government felt compelled to set bounties on wolves while I know of no one who cries over the rats. I will concede that I have never heard of rats being endangered (could be though if the Pied Piper was not a fiary tale).

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Hi Redleg,

      My friend just got back from Iraq. He was there for 14 months and is glad to be back in the states, though he said that Iraq wasn’t bad. Just depends on your MOS I guess. Be safe and watch your backside!

      The rat is most definitely more villianized than the wolf😉

      PS: I googled how to spell villainized and still don’t know lol. I don’t think it’s a word, but it should be.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Yes, that’s the ticket! Thanks.

  13. Cobra Says:

    Redleg,
    Thanks for your service.

    • Redleg Says:

      It’s my honor to serve and I thank your friend for his service as well. I do appreciate the corrections to my first blog entry as it has been some time since I was in school. I will try to get my thoughts and proper vocabulary hat on for my next entries and will try to keep my mistakes at a minimum as I know they can be quite distracting from the discussion.

  14. White Wolf Says:

    Does anyone have a link that shows the populations of cattle, and sheep in the relevant states?

    • Nancy Says:

      Probably gonna have to google that information White Wolf by state and then add 5-7%, because as old rancher once said to me “why I don’t rightly know how many head of cattle I got”

  15. Ann Sydow Says:

    I see that IDFG has already noted on their site that they are back in charge of Idaho’s wolves. Does anyone know if the language used when Otter took IDFG out of wolf management in Oct. would automatically return IDFG’s power at this time? For one thing, the ruling says that the wolves will be de-listed 60 days from the day it was signed. Just a thought… anybody?

    • WM Says:

      Ann,

      I quickly looked at the IDFG website and could not find current information regarding resumption of their “management” and designated agent duties after Butch withdrew that authority on December 8, 2010.

      I didn’t do a thorough look, but perhaps you can direct us to the specific web page.

      Regardless of the official stage of resumption of ID “management duties,” wolves are still federally protected (whatever that means on the ground), until the rule goes into effect 60 days after the President signed the budget bill, making the 2009 delisting rule law.

      It seems there are alot of loose ends on this, that would require some documents to be updated and signed quickly, as among all the parties ID, MT and the feds.

      Then, there is the anticipated participation for WY, for whatever eventually might evolve as an updated plan acceptable to FWS, that could resolve the issue that Judge Johnson raised in why their plan (bad as it was) could not be summarily rejected by FWS. The interesting thing about that aspect is that it specifically focuses on the 100/10 minimum threshold, most of which could be satisfied by the wolves in Yellowstone NP.

      It is also important that the “genetic connectivity and diversity” issues are still standards that will be evaluated for ESA compliance over time, and the will still be a part of all that. I expect the litigation that made this issue more contentious is only on hold for a short while, while wolf advocacy groups consider what their next steps might be, and when.

      Very interesting dynamics in play over the next year, I expect, especially as ID and MT begin to gear up for a fall harvest to knock the numbers back down, especially after a new crop of pups that will likely take the NRM population over 2,000 before official counts are made.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        “a new crop of pups that will likely take the NRM population over 2,000 before official counts are made.”

        I think that’s a bit optimistic given the current population trajectory.

        http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt10/tables/FINAL_2010_%20BP_by_REC_%20AREA_Table_4a_03-02-11_csime.pdf

        Granted, those are minimum counts, but that’s what the official count is.

        “The interesting thing about that aspect is that it specifically focuses on the 100/10 minimum threshold, most of which could be satisfied by the wolves in Yellowstone NP.”

        It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I don’t think that FWS will allow Wyoming to delist if its population is almost wholly contained inside the Park, where Wyoming has no management authority. But who knows? FWS has been known to be inconsistent when it comes to approving Wyoming’s plans.

        “Within the Trophy Game Area, the WYGFC through the WYGF will have management authority over wolves outside the National Parks and will manage wolves and set harvest regulations in such a way as to assure that the management targets of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves for the State, with at least 7 of these breeding pairs in Wyoming outside the National Park Units, are met. The maintenance of wolf breeding pairs outside the National Parks is important to supplement those in the National Parks that, according to YNP policy, will fluctuate naturally and possibly widely, and to ensure the GYA is maintained at a level and distribution (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006) that encourages the incorporation of naturally dispersing wolves into the GYA system, and that suitable habitat in northwestern Wyoming is occupied by wolf packs. ” 73 Fed. Reg. at 10550.

        “Maintaining wolf populations safely above recovery levels and promoting demographic and genetic exchange in the GYA segment of the NRM area will depend on wolf packs living outside the National Park/Wilderness portions of northwestern Wyoming and southwestern Montana.”
        74 Fed. Reg. at 15137.

      • Phil Says:

        “…especially after a new crop of pups that will likely take the NRM population over 2,000 before official counts are made.” Apparently there will be no wolf deaths that would help increase the new pup population beyond the 2,000 number level.

      • WM Says:

        Dude,

        I don’t think 2000 is an unrealistic number cresting in the next few months, but before official estimates are made. Just to be clear, obviously there won’t be that many at end of 2011, after natural mortality of the pup crop, WS interventions, and whatever happens in the way of legal harvest this fall in ID and MT.

        It has been awhile since I read the WY wolf management plan, but for certain the YNP population counts for a significant portion of the WY obligation, and they have centered much of their management argument around that. There has been speculation following Judge Johnson’s decision that if WY expands the trophy zone a bit bigger than the current zone in NW WY, that might satisfy FWS as regards an acceptable plan, giving the bigger buffer to numbers outside the Park. And, yeah, that means they would likely be able to keep the stupid “predator zone” where wolves could be shot on sight.

      • WM Says:

        Phil,

        Don’t give me a reason to use the “I” word again. I said “…..the new crop of pups that will likely take the NRM population over 2,000 before official counts are made.” That means alot will happen between birthing and the next official estimates that show up in an annual report, which will be lower based on natural mortality and human take of whatever kind and unknown number. GEEEEZ!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: