Idaho Governor Howls for Wolf Delisting

Black wolf in Yellowstone, courtesy of Tim Springer. Copyright 2005.

The term “Crap Shoot” Comes to Mind . . .

Over at one of my favorite on-line news sources, NewWest.net, Idaho’s Governor Butch “I Want to Be One of the First to Kill A Wolf” Otter has posted an article extolling the virtues of his state’s plan for wolves. Although you need to read between the lines a bit to see what Governor Otter wants for wolves, it’s worth a read. Click here to jump to the article.

One of the points that Governor Otter makes is that the federal recovery plan for wolves contains numeric goals for determining when wolves are recovered in the three-state region. Yet, these goals were not created as trigger points for de-listing outside of the context of the species’ status in other parts of its range. Specifically, these goals were (unfortunately) not tiered to any spatial aspect of where wolves should be roaming again–an oversight that puts the recovery plan crossways with the Endangered Species Act.

Wolves presently occupy less than five percent of their former range in the lower forty-eight states. The law says that we must restore wolves to “all or a significant portion” of the species’ historic range before saying that the job is done. Although nobody expects wolves to again roam most of the United States, many places (such as western Colorado and west-central Wyoming) have plenty of wild prey and wild land for wolves.

Five percent isn’t enough, Governor. The job’s not done.

Advertisements

38 responses to “Idaho Governor Howls for Wolf Delisting

  1. I have one more story to share. We had a dog shooting incident on our street because of the psycho neighbors just mentioned above. they insisted on letting their pit bull run around biting everyone. So the neighbor illegally shot the dog one night in another neighbors yard. He now has a felony on his record for illegal discharge of a weapon. The dog owner was distraught ovbiously… its was the drama of the year. Another neighbor gloated at her over the death of her dog. He told her “he was glad her dog was shot, and he hoped her other dog got shot too” and he laughed in her face…. more then once…I watched it. you know what happened? His wife died two months after their new baby was born a month later. Maybe wishing self righteous death on someone else or their dog wasn’t such a good idea after all. Why her? Of all the people on the street why her? Why not another neighbor? Well you know the more I thought about it, her husband was pretty darn happy about someone elses loss. I had to wonder about that. Maybe it was his opportunity to learn a very hard lesson about attitude. Because in the grand scheme of things apparently his wife was no more superior to the neighbors unruly dog. Not in the eyes of the greater intelligence that governs things. Was it the pit bulls fault his owner is a psychopath? Was it the pit bulls fault the owner probably trained it for illegal dog fights because they deal drugs? That dog took an hour to bleed to death while the neighbors screamed at each other and the sheriff stood around picking his nose… and no one bothered to take it to the vet. They may have been able to save him if they had actually put him in a car and driven him to the vet AN HOUR BEFORE. And I guess it never occurrred to the neighbors around me, that if your going to complain about the pit bull being loose… maybe your ten million boxers shouldn’t be running loose either who constantly run into my yard barking and growling at me….for some reason they were entitled. I never quite got that. And of all the loose dogs on the street, the pit bull never actually bothered me. But he did get in a fight with the neighbors boxer who was also running loose and has no manners. You can’t manage your dogs you don’t have a right to own them in my own opinion… and on the other side of the fence, you don’t go around dealing out death and punishment just because you think you have a political cause not unless you want the universe to take something away from you and not unless you are prepared for that potential sacrifice to learn from your own self righteousness. I never had anything against the dogs to be honest. They are just doing what dogs do. I cannot STAND my neighbors however. I think they all need to be hog tied and gagged for the next two years and re parented. Be very very careful what sort of political or personal hostility you put out into this world, it will come back to you one way or the other. No one is exempt. Its far bigger then all of us.

  2. Wow. It is really a disheartening experience to read this blog. I wanted to share that I grew up with a ranching family. My family had horses and cattle. My grandparents raised dogs. I’ve seen what dogs can do to cattle and sheep. I’ve had to bury sheep torn apart by dogs. Its just part of life. Things happen. Some choices support us better then other choices do. You adapt, you improvise, you learn. In fact I’ve even had to finish killing one a dog half ate, and yet, I cannot help to have a deep and abiding respect for the wildlife balance because I believe based on personal experience it is the not the animals that are fault, it is the people. Both ranchers and enviornmentalists on BOTH SIDES of the fence that cannot seem to get beyond their own personal biases to see a bigger picture of what balance means. Cougers here in California are becoming problematic to people why? Because land developers are driving them out of there upper mountain habitat. Not because animal rights activists are breeding them or lobbying for them. Now its all about the horrible mountain lion… the big “threat” to society. Well he’s just trying to eat too just like the rest of us folks. But no we have to demonize everything because its the American propagandist way isn’t it? Is that the fault of the couger? I don’t think so. Why do we need ten million housing developments in the mountains? Has it not ever occurred to anyone in the United States that perhaps human need to quit breeding so copiously? I don’t know maybe try NOT having children and actually doing something constructive with your personal lives instead of making your kids deal with the garbage you never will and dumping all your problems on them? We all talk about managing wildlife, but do we talk about managing our human breeding? Do we not have a responsibility for our own survival and for the resources of our planet? Do we not have a responsibility to the people already here who have tons of troubles? Or do we all just think its ok to live in excess for the all american inflated dollar? Do we all really need to have three children a peice while half the world starves and suffers in pollution, disease and political unrest in places where we have no ecology left at all? No.. apparently we all think its appropriate to continue having 3 and 4 children per family…why? Because its the American dream… so lets overpopulate the world with human beings because we think children are the magic answers to all of the emotional problems of our lives… continue to raise them to be abused and neglected individuals who then become psychopathic and fill up our prisons… decimate all of the wildlife because we need houses to put all the children in we breed… and then complain that its everyone elses fault for absolutley everything without ever taking a look in teh mirror at ourselves or how we contribute to a contantly deteriorating society amongst ourselves on a DAILY BASIS. Its not just a problem of wolves or elk. Its not US AND THEM. Its all of us folks. When does this madness stop? When do we take responsibility for ourselves and our sense of human decency? The Iraq war IS relevant to the wolf issue. EVERYTHING is relevent. We’ve spent BILLIONS of dollars decimating civilians and ecology in a foriegn country which could have been better invested in our own American problem solving solutions. Its VERY relevent. You cannot separate the problems of humanity by putting them all in neat little categories. You know what? People get eaten by sharks out here every day on the coast of California too… I guess it never occurred to surfers that when you dress up like seals and swim in great white breeding grounds its very possible your going to get eaten. I for one am smart enough to stay out of the great white shark populated water especially during BREEDING SEASON!!! But I guess thats teh shark’s fault too eh? Cause we have a right to own the ocean too? Give me a break. If we were supposed to be out there god would have given us fins. LOL. Last time I checked we don’t have those. We really shouldn’t be swimming in shark infested oceans where they have a right to live just so we can complain about the fact that sharks live there because humans think they are so superior not only to each other but every other species on the planet. I’m not a radical animal rights activist. I’ve known radical animal rights activists who have been a pain in my behind that I couldn’t personally stand because half of them are just as idiotic as half of the conservatives. I’m an animal lover. All animals. Not just cows horses or wolves… ALL animals. Elk too. I’m sorry folks… we have a bear that gets into our garbage cans here on my quiet little neighborhood street. Doesn’t bother me in the least. Stay out of the way of the bear…. we’ll all get along fine!!! Lock your door, keep your dogs in a fenced yard (they should be fenced anyway instead running loose in the streets to be hit by cars) , poke your head out the door during bear season before you walk outside. Its not that difficult. I even gave him a big bucket of water out in my yard away from the house so he’d stay out of my 80 year neighbors water fountain that he busted trying to get a drink of water.. Drink your water, be on your way… ITS ALL GOOD!!! Why is this so difficult? So you have to pick up your garbage can now and again.. I CHOOSE to live in the woods. I figure based on commen since that probably a bear lives here too somewhere. If I don’t want to deal with the bear and if he’s such a major inconvenience to my life… then maybe I shouldn’t live in the woods. Maybe I should take the advice given above and MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. The woods is the woods is the woods… animals live in the folks Marion whether they are being managed or not. They still live in the woods. Have been since prehistoric times as I recall. I can think of worse problems in my life then bitching about the bear. Believe me the bear is the least of my problems. He’s actually less trouble then my drug dealing, psychopathic, violent, irresponsible pit bull owning neighbors are behind me. I’ll take my chances with the bear any day. The bears were here hundreds of years before I came along. Yes, mountain lions are a little disturbing… common sense however will usualy win the day. Learn how to navigate your territory just like you learn how to navigate teh dark streets of the big cities. You use common sense… usually everything is fine. don’t leave your food outside. Don’t go walking in the woods if your on your period or wearing perfume..Keep an eye on your kid… Get a big dog… make a lot of noise.. they raise dogs to protect livestock from predators you know. There are solutions if you own cattle. I don’t really understand the amount of un necessary hostility that Marion continually displays. It sounds to me like she has a very personal chip on her shoulder that has nothing to do with wolves or elk, but that has everything to do with the fact that possibly nothing makes her happy even in her personal life and the world owes her something out of an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Get over it. All of you. I for one learned a long time ago no one owes me anything no matter how unfair my life has seemed and my life has been pretty damn unfair. Make a choice and get happy. Or live in misery and bitch and complain the rest of your life and make everyone else around you miserable because you have issues. It is a choice.

    Light In Extension

  3. To the webmaster of this thread.

    Since when is the Governor of Idaho responsible for the wolves to occupy the remaining 95% of their natural habitat in the lower 48 states? This is what you and all the wolf advocates want but Idaho is not responsible for the remaining 95%. Frankly, Idaho has surpassed the minimum required for delisting by a factor of 70 (700 wolves in the State of Idaho).

  4. Well for starters did they or did they not count in March of 2006? If so how many did they count. Thru 2006, FWS maintained they did not count, this year they say they did. Both cannot be true. Can you tell me where that 6588 number comes from? January of this year is the first I have seen it.
    Frank was refering (I think) to the long term history of elk in Yellowstone.
    That does bring up another question, if the elk had a history of fluctuations what was the big push to haul wolves in to kill them off? And when they are gone?

  5. Marion, I don’t know what site you are looking at. Unless you consider the national park service a biased source, this report backs up Frank N’s numbers. You do understand that it is impossible to count every elk. You know, it is kind of fun following you around the internet proving you wrong. Thank you for giving me so many opportunities.

    http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/press/nycwwg.htm

  6. Ahhh, yes that count. Let’s take a look at the Jan 19, 2007s 6738 up from 6588 in March 2006. One problem, the FWS report on March 24, 2006 states no count was done. A few days later Montana G&F released the count done by them and FWS on March 23 of 3649. On June 30, 2006, FWS stated they did NO population count in March 2006, the 3649 elk counted were considered a population count. The record is there on their site, and I have yet heard a single person who could explain it away, or for that matter who would try.

  7. The population of the Northern Range elk herd has fluctuated up and down ever since they started counting them. The count has been as low as 4,000 (well before wolf reintroduction) and as high as 19,000 (a one time high universally recognized as WAY more elk than the range could support). Average counts through the years have been between 6,000 and 10,000. Ask property owners in Paradise Valley if they would like to see 19,000 elk in this herd again. That year the elk were literally eating themselves, and local ranchers, out of house and home. Indeed, over three thousand of them died that winter of starvation before the first wolf was brought to Yellowstone. Montana GREATLY increased tags for the late winter hunt of this herd near Gardiner; primarily because of demands from local property owners that something be done. These increased, very generous, harvest numbers were continued until just a few years ago. Long after they should have been discontinued; when natural processes, predators and an extended drought, started having an affect in balancing the herd naturally……just as they have for thousands of years.
    I know that this herd is the wolf-haters “poster child”, but facts clearly show that the wolf is only one of many factors at play here. The herd size is actually UP slightly this year compared to last, and may actually stabilize now that much of the (human) hunting pressure is off. Unfortunately all indicators are that we are in for yet another year of drought.

  8. Marion, i for one would like to see as much of this country as possible restored to its former wild splendor. That includes wolves being reintroduced to the northeast, bison expanding their numbers greatly outside of yellowstone, the establishment of a maine woods national park, restoration of the everglades and the spread of wolves beyond the tri-state yellowstone area, etc. I think there is room for all of this to happen while hunting and ranching still exist. Just what stake do you have in all of this?
    Also, you always come up with a convenient excuse whenever you are presented with an article that proves you wrong. Something tells me if that article said that elk were in record low numbers at the national elk refuge you would be squawking that wolves were to blame. Why havent the elk in canada gone extinct? Could it be that elk and wolves have evolved to live together?

  9. I have asked before, but haven’t had an answer. What happened to the wildlife that once lived where Frank, Ralph, kt, Steve, and the rest of you live? Do you want it all restored there too?
    By the way editor, I am taking the elk numbers from the FWS reports.

  10. Nope, first of all, there isn’t nearly as heavy a concentration of wolves in Jackson as there is in Yellowstone, plus they had a lot more moose to eat. And yes I know that one guy followed 20-25 cows and they fell over dead, not killed by any of the multitude of predators around.
    The fact remains the 19,000 elk counted in Yellowstone in 1994, are now about 6000 elk. FWS in their infinite wisdom predicted a 30% total drop before leveling out, not 30% remaining after 12 years and still dropping. On top of that there is a calf retention ration of 8-14%, that will only continue the herd drain. The normal for those who are uninformed is around 40%.
    By the way the huge antelope herds in southern Wyoming are among big herds of sheep, cattle, horses (both wild and domestic). Plus they thrive well among the oil wells that have been in the area for over 70 years.

  11. http://www.jacksonholenews.com/article.php?art_id=1554

    Marion, what do you think of this article? Are the wolves around jackson hole lazy? It seems like they are having trouble decimating elk numbers there… Is this article biased like everything else that proves you wrong?

  12. “Let the wildlife biologists manage them like they do all other species. We can not go back to the 1800’s, get over it, those days are gone.” Ron, this is EXACTLY what we want! “Let the wildlife biologists (not politicians, ranchers, outfitters, hunters etc.) manage them like they do all other species. We cannot go back to the 1800’s (when wolves were persecuted and slaughtered just for being a wolf), get over it, those days are gone.” How can we support de-listing when the governors of two of the three states cry from the rooftops, “Let the slaughter begin!”. Not, “Let the MANAGEMENT BY PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS begin.”
    Public lands belong to all Americans. That means that if you live in Wyoming you have a say in what is done with public land in California (which has far more wilderness than Wyoming BTW) and vice versa.
    If wolves are ON YOUR LAND, messing with your cows, shoot them. But if you insist on grazing your cows on OUR LAND (public land owned by all of the citizens of the United States) then open up the purse strings, spend a few of those dollars you are saving by grazing on public land, and hire a few hands to keep an eye on them. Don’t persecute an entire species because they don’t have the ability to know the difference between your cow and OUR deer or elk.
    Once again, LEARN TO LIVE WITH WILDLIFE. The 1800’s, when your great grandfather could custom design the ecosystem that he wanted, truly are over.

  13. Well, Steve, conversely, what gives anyone, including you, the right to dictate how federal lands are managed? Since those of us in the states with the bulk of that federal land pay the extra property taxes to make up for the lack of tax based land, perhaps we should have a tiny bit of say…..at least allow us to clear our throat.
    If you think wolf people are tired of hearing about wolf killed elk carcasses, think how tired we are of seeing them. The Yellowstone elk herds are not hunted, but they have been decimated. The moose are even worse hit. But as long as enviros insist all is well, it is, despite facts.
    An inconvenient truth that wolf people prefer to ignore is that wolves do not confine their predations to public land, they like livestock on private land just as well. And that is where we’re told that if we don’t like it we can get out, that is the way the wolfers want it.

    [Editor’s Note: I hate to sound like a broken record, but assertions that the Yellowstone herds have been “decimated” by wolves do not bear-up under the current research. I’m certain that the readers of this blog would appreciate seeing any and all peer-reviewed/published evidence supporting such claims].

  14. Marion, what gives ranchers, mining companies and hunters the right to decide how our public lands are used? It seems like their attitude of being “entitled to design our land use” is much more destructive than what environmentalists come up with. Anti wolf people pretending to feel bad about seeing elk carcasses is getting REALLY OLD. Especially since they want to eliminate wolves to kill the elk themselves. It is not like you want wolves eliminated so elk can live peaceful lives…

  15. If you remove all the rhetoric the bottom line is that the wolf advocates will never be happy until they have descimated the moose, elk, deer, domestic livestock, pets, etc. then maybe just maybe they will consent to some control. I have tried to figure out what drives them to have no concern for other species of animals that are border line threatened because of reduced habitat and multitudes of other issues. They see no problem throwing a pack of wolves into the mix just to weed out the weak? If you have ever seen a pack of wolves go after an animal they can and do take down any target they choose be it a calf, cow or mature 6 point bull. Most people in Idaho hate wolves but to hear the wolf advocates you’d think everyone was in love with them except hunters. Oh, I forgot, they all claim to be hunters and justify the wolves by saying it makes for better hunting as in more wary or smarter animals. If you can get around all the propaganda and listen to first hand experience from people that are in the wilderness areas they will tell you the moose are being taken out of historical range land, the elk numbers are down drastically in many of the hunting zones. Just do the math, how many elk do 1200 wolves need to survive for one year and then the next and the next and so on. Let the wildlife biologists manage them like they do all other species. We can not go back to the 1800’s, get over it, those days are gone. Yes developement does more harm than wolves but thats no justification for letting them multiply with no control. I was out picking up sheds 15 minutes out of Boise Idaho (the capital) and saw wolves, they are everywhere and are pushing into all the bordering states. Just wait Utah, you’ve done a good job of managing your big game herds just so the wolf advocates can have another home for their blankety, blank, wolves.

  16. You are the one that made the statement that we can either learn to live with the (imported) wolves or move. At least be big enough to take responsibility for it. I have seen the same thing written by many, who feel entitled to design our land use the way they want it to be.
    I don’t know where you might live that the kids are out taking pictures of the nice wolfies in your yard. Do they get to take pictures of the carcasses of what was once your cows or sheep too? Or even your dog?
    I fail to see what the war in Iraq has to do with wolves, since we were spending millions to put them where enviro groups wanted them to be long before the Iraq situation. The Nez Perce estimate it costs about 10,000 for every arial control they have to do. FWS is not admitting anything.
    We definately need an ESA appropriation every year, if it is all used up dealing with lawsuits, then there is no money for the species that enviro goups want to use to control other people. And that is what it is all about, having the power to make other people do what you want them to.

  17. Heard Enough

    Frank,

    Your points are well taken and made. The reason folks like Marion have a problem with wolves is because they choose to remain ignorant about wolves and the role they play in nature. The tired old arguments 1) decimate ungulate populations, 2) ruin the livestock industry, 3) pose a threat to human safety, 4) incorrect subspecies, etc. that they offer up cannot be substantiated with scientific fact. They denigrate pro-wolf opinions with the “wolves can do no wrong in the eyes of the enviros,” yet no matter how much quantifiable, verifiable data is put forth, the anti-wolf crowd covers its ears, shakes its head and says “I can’t hear you.” If wolves were so devastating why are there any ungulates left in N. America after tens of thousands of years of wolf-ungulate cohabitation? If wolves are supposedly going to wreak havoc on the human population, when does that start? Sure, it may happen someday, but if certain folks are going to make such a fuss about an incredibly unlikely event, I hope they wear a hard-hat while outdoors to safeguard them from that impending meteor strike. This is (or used to be) a democratic society; meaning that if the enviros can muster enough support for wolf recovery everywhere they want it, then so be it. Marion seems to want things to be reversed, where the minority dictate (livestock industry, hunters [and I’m opposed to neither]) to the majority.

  18. What in the world do wolves living in the woods have to do with our kids having a right to live in their homes? I’ve had wolves on my land and the kids didn’t run and hide, they ran out to try and get a picture. And since when are all 44 (or so) states that don’t have wolves “living in caves”?
    I also never made a suggestion that anyone should give up their property rights or give away their property for free to anyone. In fact, most ranchers around these parts who have sold out have done so at huge profits over what was originally paid for the land. (One I read about said he paid less than 100.00 an acre when he bought it, and sold for 100,000 an acre!) I would rather he stayed than see the huge subdivision that is coming. He didn’t sell because of wolves, he sold because his kids didn’t want it and he couldn’t resist the price.
    Let me make myself clear. If wolves are on your land chasing or killing your stock, you should have a RIGHT to shoot them. If wolves kill some of your stock on your land you should have the RIGHT to be compensated for that loss. Even if it’s “iffy”. If we can spend billions in Iraq, I think that’s the least we can do for our hardworking ranchers that we “forced” another predator on.
    I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this.
    But along with these RIGHTS, I believe that you should have the RESPONSIBILITY to correct irresponsible husbandry practices that invite predators to “dinner”. Deer were eating my apples. I put up a fence. I didn’t go on a vendetta to kill every deer in the woods. That is learning to live with wildlife.
    What I am opposed to is the wholesale slaughter of wolves, bringing them down to some arbitrary “minimum” number, simply because they are wolves. I believe that these wolves have a RIGHT to live.
    People raise livestock in wolf country in many areas of the world with few problems. Why can’t we?

  19. Grrr, getting old! Here is the link to Dan Tyer’s presentation, I thought I posted it yesterday.
    http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/2005workshop/010transcript.htm
    Your last sentence is so arrogant, and so typical of environmentalists! What gives you the right to decide that what you want is more important than our right to continue to live in our homes? You feel it really is more important that you be able to hear a wolf howl than it is for our kids to be able to live in their own homes? We can either accept your term or go live in a cave somewhere huh?
    The reason the habitat is so good here is because there are so few people that you can push them out of the way and do what you want with our homes. You certainly cannot be expected to give up anything for the wolves you want!
    And you wonder why we are so bitter, it isn’t the wolves we hate, it is the attitude that we have no rights to our own property if the great and holy enviros want it…..for free of course!

  20. Here’s that link. Scroll down to “Counts of moose observed by aerial flights, northern Yellowstone winter range, 1968-1996”.

    http://mms.nps.gov/yell/northernrange/appendixb.htm

    I think that there are probably suitable wolf habitat in SOME forests in California and New York. But let’s be realistic: the reason the northern Rockies were “targeted” is because there is a great deal of suitable habitat here. We find here the last intact temperate ecosystem in North America. Preserving part of that for future generations is far more important than the desires of a few hundred (or thousand) folks who can move elsewhere if they can’t get along with wildlife (including the kind they can’t, or won’t, eat).

  21. By the way Frank, a judge a few years ago struck down downlisting wolves to threatened because they were not in all fo their former territory.
    Why should these three states be selected to be the ones to carry the burden of raising wolves for the rest of the country, and have to pay for it to boot?
    I believe it is the Disney world science that brought us to this situation. Those of us living in this country are realistic enough to discount both Little Red, which incidentally seems to be the favorite fairy tail of enviros, and Disney.

  22. Do you have a link for that Frank? The only study I can find is the one that was done by Dan Tyers et al from the years 1986 thru 2003. His conclusion? He didn’t know how many moose there were. Certainly they seemed to decrease after the 88 fires even though they were expected to increase as canopies opened up following the fires. They were issuing 55 hunting permits yearly, so that would indicate more than 19 moose.
    I do know they removed the moose information kiosk in Willow Park since the moose are now gone from that area. That was done either last year or the year before, I can’t remember.
    I know it was there 3 years ago because a bunch of us were photographing a grizzly across from Indian Creek campground. A guy pulled up and asked where the moose were, he said there is a sign back there that says to watch for moose.

  23. Marion, I pulled these numbers up on the Yellowstone web site regarding moose on the Northern Range. These counts were all done PRIOR to wolf reintroduction. I find them interesting. 1971-72, 100 moose counted. 1973-74, 75 moose counted. 1989-90, 59 moose counted. 1991, 19 moose counted. 1992, only 12 moose counted! How do you explain this when wolves weren’t reintroduced until 1995?

  24. I will concede the number was used just to get the wolves hauled in. Wolf groups had no intention of honoring it, their word is valueless.
    No matter how you try to twist it, we have to maintain at least that number of wolves, whether there is enough wildlife left to feed them or not.
    One requirement calls for Wyoming to maintain 8 packs in Yellowstone, despite absolutely no historical evidence of anything approaching that number of wolves there. Remember it took hunters 42 years to “extirpate” 56 adult wolves, and 80 pups.
    So what do we do if they cannot survive with that high a population of wolves….and I for one do not believe they can. The moose are very nearly gone, and the elk numbers are dropping like a rock from a plane.

  25. I don’t think that anyone expects that wolves should be returned to 100 percent of their original territory. I think that what we should be able to expect, however, is that Wyoming and Idaho come up with reasonable, responsible, mature management plans (see Montana) that aren’t based on the science of Little Red Riding Hood. Plans that allow wolves to continue to expand their territory in suitable habitat, while dealing with individual problems that may occur; either through correcting irresponsible husbandry practices where they occur or, yes, removing problem wolves. Not plans that insist on reducing numbers (slaughtering wolves just because they are wolves, not because they have caused any problems) to a figure that was never meant to be a maximum, only a minimum. A number where, with one serious outbreak of parvo or mange they would be right back on the list.
    Canus Lupus is all you have to worry about, same species. Sub species refer to slight differences in coloration and size only, not to their place in the ecosystem. It’s like comparing Rocky Mountain Elk to Tule Elk or Roosevelt Elk. Remember, if it weren’t for folks a hundred years ago trying to create their own “designer” ecosystem (one without predators) reintroduction would never have been necessary.

  26. i think it’s been established that the agreement was more than numbers – it was about territory as well –

    protect your animals – i don’t think anyone is questioning that – just don’t throw off the public land’s ecological balance to do so – if you’re animals can’t survive without altering the public’s environment negatively, then keep hefty fences around your private property and your animals off everyone’s public land.

  27. What argument would you use to keep wolves out of your yard? Or in a broader context out of California forests, or New York forests? Does your personal wishes take precedence over anyone else’s rights to use property they own or rent, to be able to protect the animals they care for?
    Exactly what control of the wolves would you allow, and how many exactly are enough? Do you feel we have to keep raising wolves in Wyoming until wolves are established in all of their former habitat, including New Hampshire? It is already clear that enviros had no intention of honoring the 10/100-30/300 that was the original agreement.
    Is there any number at all that would prevent lawsuits and a fight with environmentalists, both before the agreement and after it was reached?

  28. one of the interesting facts that i gained at the FWS delisting meeting in Boise was how the agency determined ‘suitable’ habitat for wolves. I’ll post the video of my question when i have a chance – but the rep. of FWS said that the presence of livestock on public land automatically precluded the area from being considered ‘suitable’ habitat for wolves. when i asked what the scientific basis for this determination was, and jokingly suggested sociology – the rep. said “exactly” – since then, or perhaps before – it’s hard to tell, the state (id) has used the word ‘sociological concerns’ as a determinate in establishing ‘no tolerance zones’ within which wolves will be eradicated. the agency has incorporated sociology as an antagonistic science (to be used against biology and ecology i presume) in making decisions which ought be pretty straightforward – biologically speaking. it will be interesting to see whether they try to use the so-called science of sociology as a legal argument claiming it as a fulfilment of their NEPA obligations to base decisions on sound science. grasping for straws —

  29. Well their historic ranges cover from the great lakes all the way to TX. So send them out to detroit, houston, austin, and all those urban areas. It would be fun to watch.

  30. How can such an advanced society with so many resources to us ‘superior species’ stay so ignorant to the fact that we are the problem and not the wolves. It hurts my heart to see the advocating of delisting and wolf-kill and the bitching that goes on here. Who cares which sub species? What’s does it matter the natural range-the natural range as it once was doesn’t exist anymore anyway- we have pretty much taken over and eradicated all that: so I m concluding that the visits of cougars and wolves, or other predators really isn’t so much THEIR choices as it is a complete consequence of our taking over. But then again, men is known for that anywhere in the world. I petty people who do not see the value of nature, if it weren’t for nature, none of you would be here.

  31. The original wolf in Yellowstoen was the canis lupus irremotus (now thought extinct), the wolves trucked in from Canada was canus lupus occidentalis. Unfortunately when wolves were documented in Yellowstone just prior to the introduction, no one wanted to test to see if they were the supposedly extinct wolf. That could have delayed or even stopped the whole thing. Did you need links to read about the irremotus?
    Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you I’ve been busy.

  32. TONY NELSON

    Minnesota guy here. Let me add some perspective from a state that has wolves from top to bottom. I doubt if more than 1% of our population has seen a wolf.
    My brother lives just 2 miles from the Boundary Water Wilderness area, doesnt have a neighbor for 5 miles, spends nearly evryday for the last 6 years outside & has never seen a wolf. They take a few cows & the odd stray dog now & then, but mainly live on deer & a few moose. Now with 4000 wolves we still maintain a herd of 1.6 million deer & its growing while the wolf population has leveled off. We have lots of habitat & lots of water(15000 lakes & the Mississipi river).
    I would worry more about your gas wells & long term drought than wolves eating your elk.

  33. Well Carl, it evidently doesn’t matter whether the wolves were there or not, they hauled in much bigger wolves of a different subspecies into Yellowstone. Historic range has little to do with anything, just what greens want is the determining factor.

    [Editor’s Note: Again, I would really like to have you provide the evidence (scientific) that indicates that the wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone were a different sub-species, and of a different size. My understanding is that these are the exact same sub-species, and that they were obtained from parts of Candada with similar topgraphy and with elk as the primary prey. Sorry to be such a stickler, but as Sargent Friday used to say, “Just the facts, ma’am.”]

  34. The Great Smoky Mountains were never part of the gray wolf’s historic range- at least according the the national fish and wildlife service. Your point is apparent but it might be nice to be accurate.

  35. Pingback: The Animal Kingdom » Idaho Governor Howls for Wolf Delisting

  36. I know Marion, I think we should send them east and also south and northeast. Send the suckers everywhere. Then everyone will be bitching and then people will see what we deal with here. I live in UT and they want to put them here also, a large majority of the elk and deer wintering range is right next to large residential towns. And if I remeber correctly predators follow their prey. So basically wolves chasing deer and elk up and down the wasatch front. That would make the news alot I bet. It will be funny to see when there are wolves in peoples back yards killing dogs. We already have cougars being seen walking down the sidewalk. So just add some wolves to balance nature I guess. It seems the logical thing to me.

  37. If 1200 wolves are only covering 5% of where you want them, where is it you want them? I have a problem understanding why the original agreement and levels is not enough. If you want wolves in the Smoky Mountains, put them there, don’t insist we keep raising more and more wolves until the east is saturated too, when we know it will never happen.

  38. Pingback: Ralph Maughan’s Wildlife News Idaho Governor Howls for Wolf Delisting «