WY pumps up the war chest in anticipation of wolf management

A recent article in the Casper Star-Tribune outlined a proposed budget by the state of Wyoming to fund their wolf management plan. In sum, the state plans to spend over $2 million per year to “manage” wolves. I can guarantee you that they don’t plan to be spending that money to help wolves gain more ground in Wyoming; as I said to the reporter, we’d be doing the ranchers who loose livestock to wolves a much greater service if we simply directed thos funds to pay them several time the market value of thei9r lost stock — and we’d still spend far less than $2 million!

To read the original article, click here.Old West Meets New (Photo: orgin unknown)

Advertisements

127 responses to “WY pumps up the war chest in anticipation of wolf management

  1. Marion, the thing about hikers and backpackers and the like getting sibsidized recreation is that it is open to ALL americans. We all pay federal income taxes to fund many things including maintaining OUR lands for recreation. Public lands ranchers are a chosen few who get a heck of a deal on the taxpayer’s dime and on the taxpayer’s land.

    If you look hard enough, you will find that just about everything is subsidized. From garbage removal to schools to road maintenance. (try paying for private school, paying someone to haul your garbage, and paying for your own section of road to be paved). The only difference is these subsidies benefit everyone, not just a handful of greedy leaches who get a handout and unfairly compete with people struggling to ranch on privately held land.

  2. It is obvious that they want them to remain on the endangered species list forever so they can keep thumping their chests and playing the federal government as the big bad enemy. They want to be able to use wolves to distract voters from the real issues affecting them until the end of time.

    Does anyone know if bald/golden eagles count as predatory birds?

  3. The following was posted on Ralph Maughan’s blog. I think everyone should read this closely comparing what Wyoming says with what they will probably do. thanks to the poster on Ralph’s blog, Mack Bray for the effort in researching this.

    “Wyoming’s definition of predator means that the wolf could be killed at any time, by any means, by anyone. No license would be required. Fire at will. Wyoming Statute 23-3-103(a) states “predatory animals and predatory birds may be taken without a license in any manner and at any time.” Wolves, where classified as “predators”, could be poisoned, trapped and then tortured to death, shot from planes, or run over by snowmobiles or ATVs. Their pups, still in their dens, could legally be burned alive. So much for the “fair chase ethic” promoted by Wyoming Game and Fish.

    A Wyoming law that has not garnered any attention and desperately needs some light shed on it is W.S. 23-3-103(b). It states the Game and Fish Commission can designate areas where “specified trophy animals may be taken in the same manner as predatory animals without a license.” In other words, where the wolf would be managed as a trophy animal, the Game and Fish Commission could, at its sole discretion, allow those wolves to be killed without a license, in any manner, by anyone, at any time.

    Wyoming Statute 23-1-304 determines the classification of wolves in Wyoming. In subsection (d), it states anyone who harvests a wolf has ten days to report the “number or nature” of wolves killed to the Game and Fish Department. It goes on to say “information identifying any person legally harvesting a wolf…is solely for the use of the department…and is not a public record.” I was unable to find anything in Wyoming Statue that offers this same protection to elk hunters or deer hunters. The statute suggests its purpose is for wolf population monitoring, but why the secrecy?

    This is nothing more than legalizing the old “shoot, shovel, and shut up” policy. A hunter can turn in 5 dead wolf pups he blew up inside a den and his name and how he killed the wolves will not become public knowledge.

    In America, no government agency, at any level, should operate in secrecy while conducting the business of the public.

    Wyoming continues to offer 19th century solutions to 21st century challenges.”

  4. First of all let me say thanks for the link just above, it is so long that I had to just put the link in my favorites and will read it when winter comes and I’m not so busy. What I am hoping they have is a break down of what money is going for exactly.
    I see no reason for ranchers to be ashamed, as I say, if ALL use of the forests is priced at private enterprise market prices, that will be fine, and of course the ranchers would be reimbursed at the same rate for aums of wildlife living and eating on their private property. Of course you hikers and backpackers would be reimbursed market price for everything you contribute too, including 8 hours of pulling weeds (bring gloves).
    I am not even going to argue with you about the people of Wyoming NOT wanting the wolves dumped on us to begin with and not wanting the mess we have now, I know and talk to other people all of the time. We do of course have a few kooks, even in Wyoming.

  5. Marion whines,

    “Jeff, the people of Wyoming like the people of the other 2 states are forced to sign off to get some relief from the wolves. I’m not sure it will help. What we want is some ability to control the things.”
    Marion,
    horseapples.

  6. Its funny that with the cost of EVERYTHING going up, grazing fees have gone down. I would be ashamed if I sucked money from the hard working taxpayer like these lowlives do…

  7. Again, thanks Jeff E, great resource, the map on numbered page 21 (PDF page 4) showing the percent of forage that each county gets from FS or BLM lands. The numbers for Montana are pretty much exactly what I expected.

    The map raises some other important points: will shutting down public land ranching really lead to the west being a paradise for wolves?

    It would be really interesting to cross-reference that map with lethal control actions against wolves. For example, Powell, Granite, and Ravalli Counties show up as “0-10 %” of county-wide forage coming from FS or BLM land; those counties have all recently experienced wolf-livestock conflicts and lethal control. Same with Madison and Park Counties. Idaho looks like a different story, though . . .

  8. Jeff E – thanks for that source! I always like getting new information — that wing of USDA looks interesting and should provide lots of good food for thought.

    In the PDF you linked, I think we can finally get some answers to our questions. See numbered page 19 (2d page of the PDF) in the far right column. They state that “nationally, public land ranchers account for less than 1 percent of operations with beef cattle.”

    To be clear about what they’re counting there, they’re talking about ANY beef cattle operation nationwide; that would include people with a few cows on 10 acres in Ohio. Read further:

    “Some 3-4 million head of beef cattle in the Westwide states, or about 40 percent of beef cattle inventories (about 8 percent nationally) may spend some time grazing public lands.”

    Evidently, the 40 percent there refers to just the western states; they are saying that 8 percent of the nation’s beef cattle inventory (at least in 2002) spent SOME time on public lands.

    As I wrote earlier, it is still very difficult to translate that into pounds of beef, but it at least gives us some idea of what’s going on. Maybe the “8 percent of cattle-spending-some-time-on-allotments” would translate into “3 percent of the cut beef in stores nationwide,” I don’t know.

    Glad to have some accurate information, anyhow.

  9. Jeff, the people of Wyoming like the people of the other 2 states are forced to sign off to get some relief from the wolves. I’m not sure it will help. What we want is some ability to control the things.

  10. Where CWD is occuring is in Colorado near the university research station that is thought to have turned loose the first infected deer accidently!
    http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/news.detail/ID/b3a02e60bd412b37bdeca4878caf421d

    http://www.addl.purdue.edu/newsletters/2002/fall/cwd.shtml

  11. Marion, read your own state wolf plan the majority of people in Wyoming are in favor of wolf introduction.

  12. You sound like a broken record. Why are we seeing chronic wasting disease etc. in areas of high elk density? Just a matter of time before more serious illnesses pop up. And the time frame in nature for things to work themselves out is much much longer than the tiny portion of times in which elk have existed without wolves. Wouldnt the unnatural experiment be a world without wolves since elk and wolf have survived together for hundreds of thousands of years before we created a wolf free lower 48 in the last century? Last I checked wolves exist outside of wyoming (those poor half million people…) and there is a strong will to return them to the northeast (where all those horrible liberals live).

  13. Why are elk in areas without wolves doing oK? Why did our elk do so well for so many years before someone wanted to experiment and see what happened? If wolves are so vital why aren’t they everywhere? You know in the yards of all of those folks who outvoted the half million people in Wyoming to plant them here?

  14. Just remember what happened to the fishing industry when it ignored scientists for years in favor of immediate profits. It almost collapsed. I know more elk seems very nice now, but an elk population that could collapse from disease without native predators would be a disaster.

  15. Thanks, that is pretty outdated, one striking thing is how the income from timbering has cut so dramtically into income for BLM and NFS.
    Enviro policies have destroyed the timber economy of multiple small communities, I hope they are not able to do the same to the communities built around ranching.
    One point, remember grazing is 3 months out of the year, and livestock is on private land the rest of the time. Wildlife has privately owned ranch land available 12 months out of the year.

  16. Jeff, GREAT article (assuming they don’t label the USDA as a biased source). 77 million people spending 100 billion dollars a year on non-ranching public land use. That is a far cry from marion’s assertion that recreation is a subsidized money pit (like public lands ranching). Hunting, camping, boating, hiking etc. all contribute to this. This land is supposed to be used by everyone, not just a few families to run their businesses on…

  17. Marion, I clearly talked about the period before about 150 years ago when we began mass exterminations of “problem” animals. And is a hut or a teepee living under a bush? Actually I am living under a Bush now and I can’t wait until 2008 when I am living under a Clinton (and you will be hiding under a rock).

  18. elky,
    I spent about 10 min for this one.

  19. Uhh, Steve, I believe you mentioned 10,000 years, not 200. The American Indians lived in huts and tepees, mostly. The also ran buffalo off of cliffs in order to kill them since they had nothing big enough in the way of a weapon.
    Greg, you certainly do not have to respond to me. I have pointed out umpteen times all of the things that ranchers do for wildlife and the land. What do you do, I don’t think you have listed them.
    You only think that all land out here is public, a lot is privately owned and if you want it turned into subdivisions for those big houses then you are on the right path.

  20. I suggest that instead of engaging Marion any further and using valuable energy that would better be channeled toward protecting biodiversity, that we ignore her. She is a welfare rancher who sponges off the system and has a nasty penchant for wanting to kill native species. And she refuses to acknowledge that her industry is destroying the American west.

    We should stop communicating with her and put our collective efforts together to end all ranching on public lands. Until that happens, wildlife and wild places will continue to suffer from the excesses of slob ranchers.

    Marion, fortunately, I think the days of public welfare ranching are numbered. When a Democratic president is elected and Congress stays in Democratic hands, I can assure you many of us will work vigorously to get cut the bloated funds that go to bloated bovines and bloated ranchers. By 2009, hopefully, welfare ranching will be a thing of the past, wolves will thrive across the west, and native wildlife will finally have a chance to reclaim the land.

  21. People lived under bushes in the 1800s?

  22. Well Steve, you set by example giving up your home first and live under a bush or whatever I guess. The world is constantly changing and will continue as long as it exists.

  23. Marion, humans survived just fine for tens of thousands of years before the last 150 years when we decided to exterminate every species that is an inconvenience. And I am talking about a whole lot more than just wolves…

  24. SAP,
    Thanks, I spent about a half an hour looking for some info but could not find anything. Let me know if you find anything.
    Elkhunter

  25. Anne, have you ever gone out and found any of your animals killed by coyotes or any other predator? How about your bum lamb that your raised on a bottle? The fact is we all inhabit the earth and we have to try to make compromises.
    If there was only animals inhabiting the earth and no human animals you wouldn’t be around to enjoy it.

  26. Elkhunter: I scoured the Hudak report and found this:

    “Federal subsidies benefit approximately 22,350 livestock operators (2.3% of the operators in the contiguous 48 states) (US Department of Interior 1994: 3-65), who collectively produce only about 2% of the US beef supply (Committee on Government Operations 1986).”

    Pretty old figures, and not direct from USDA, so I would still do some digging to get at the true current situation.

  27. Thanks for lively discussion, all. Clearly, if we are discussing how much beef is “produced” on federal lands, we’re going to end up with a lower figure than the one I cited, especially in a state like Montana, which has a lot of beef cows and a lot of private rangeland.

    I’m not sure how we actually would account for the percentage of cut beef in stores that is “produced” on federal lands.

    I’m sure we could go to BLM, USFS, USFWS, and (!!) NPS records to find out how many animal units are permitted and how many actually graze federal grass. I doubt those agencies actually make an accounting of how that forage translates into pounds of cut beef. That would be quite complex, considering that some cattle are on public land a long time, some just a few weeks, some are bulls that may never end up as packaged beef . . . calves are the biggest “product” off western range, and they’re just counted as part of an animal unit with their moms.

    Maybe there’s some way of accounting for total forage use annually (public and private) that would give us an accurate figure, I don’t know. Anybody else know?

  28. Jeff E,
    I agree with you guys I would also like to see a little less grazing and hopefully more sound ranching techniques. I read those links, where exactly are they getting the 3-5% number. They are stating it, but I cant find a source from any government agency, mostly I find that figure being stated but no link as to where it came from.
    Elkhunter

  29. elky,
    could go on forever. question though, when will you stat doing your own research?

  30. Cattle are grazed on public land for 3 months for a very simple reason, nearly all of the mountain land in this country is public. The Rocky Mountain area is either mountain or valley, both are needed for wildlife and livestock to thrive. The cooperation between the ranchers and the government who kept title to the mountain country has worked well for a century and a half. Now we have folks who are professional recreationalists and litigators who want to eliminate the ranchers and turn everything into a playground.
    Sadly what will actually happen is that the ranches that have been providing habitat during winters in particular will be broken up into subdivisions who do not want their plants destroyed and there will be much less wildlife.
    The other alternative is that big corporations will buy the ranches and access thru those ranches will be eliminated to get to public land.
    If you truly believe either of these scenarios are beneficial to wildlife, the land, or even to you, charge on with your agenda.

  31. Jeff E, I read the reports. And once again the report stating 3-5% is from an obviously blantantly biased report. Did they quote their source. Not to mention that the report is almost a decade old.
    Elkhunter

  32. elky,
    read the post slowly. one talked about the total number of cows produced in the west and one talked about the number grazed on public lands.

  33. One other thing, that report is almost a decade old. Might be slightly outdated. Who knows.
    Elkhunter

  34. I checked the link that Anne provided, it was focused on AZ and NM. Not to mention it was produced obviously by a very biased organization. So should we question its credibility at all? If I posted a source from The Nation Cattlemens Association you guys would have a heyday. So that same line of thinking would apply here.
    Elkhunter

  35. Jeff E,
    SAP posted a link that differed greatly from your post. His was substantially higher than %3. Who is right?
    Elkhunter

  36. elkhunter,
    only ~3% of the nations livestock are grazed on public land, about 99.9% of that in the western states. Why is the other 97% nation wide able to either do the same on private land or pay fair market price to graze their livestock. Why should the other 97% have to deal with subsidized advantage that the 3% enjoy through grazing allotments?

  37. Marion,
    I don’t think that killing native carnivores (coyotes and wolves) that happen to show up on a rancher’s “private land” is synonymous with “sharing”. I think it shows that ranchers have learned nothing from the lessons of the past. Either about good stewardship, sustainable business practices, or a balanced view of nature. I think it represents the same old backward thinking that nearly made species extinct in the first place.

    Moreover, I was talking about public lands, you know, the lands where the folks in the Cowboy State can hardly wait to extirpate native carnivores, the minute protections are lifted.

    I would think that by now modern ranchers would have evolved to survive in today’s world, rather than clinging to outdated and unsuccessful ways of doing business and close-minded ways of thinking about native wildlife. But then it is obvious to me in the way that you keep dragging out the same tired old themes that you do not care about being a reasoned and critical thinker.

    By the way, regarding the cattle ranch that I grew up on: It was in the East, where it rains, where grass grows thick…and where we knew what was happening to our livestock because we didn’t turn them out unguarded for weeks on end.
    Anne

  38. Marion obviously has her point of view and so do you. At the same time she has some valid points, as some of you do. The argument that public ground ranching should be stopped completely is absurd. Ranching is a HUGE economic beneift to our economy, not to mention its what keeps alot of these rural towns in business. The same goes with mining and industries like that. Those are big and VITAL economic industries that our countries need. I dont know where you guys live but I live in UT and the entire central and some southern parts of UT are supported almost solely by ranching and mining. To use your mindset to wipe out these industries that effect the environment would literally put tens of thousands of people out of jobs and financial security. Now you might be very liberal and are fine with that because it does not affect you, but I feel its important part of our countries economy.
    As for the private land issue, if you guys really want to contain ranchers to thier property, then they should be able to protect their land from wildlife like deer and elk, cougars, bears and wolves etc. If you want to take it to the extreme. There are some ranchers that give all ranchers a bad name. I also know alot of really good and honest people that make their livings through ranching.
    I also feel that the wolf population could get out of control and that at some point there needs to be some sort of management. I feel it is common sense, Jeff E linked a study about the recruitment of elk in the Northern Herd, wolves/bears killed over %90 of all elk calves in one study group. That seems like a pretty high number to me. I also went to Yellowstone . net and read some of the forum entries. There were more than one person asking where all the big bulls were, and that elk numbers seem down. Maybe the wolves have something to do with it?
    Elkhunter

  39. quote: “Ranchers are able to lease the lands so cheaply because they may need to share–with the native carnivores that rightfully belong there!
    Anne” end quote

    That is exactly what I have been saying, they share their private land with the wildlife. Right now wildlife is at an all time high in this country except for the herds of buffalo, and wolves from coast to coast like when the white man came. This is largely because of ranchers and hunters whose money provides a lot of habitat. How much habitat do enviros provide?
    If you lived on a ranch you know that cattle graze approximately 3 months per year….if conditions are right, otherwise they have to leave early or go late. Wildlife tend to use private land year around (and I have pruned tomatoes and flowers to prove it), but especially in winter when high country is covered with snow and ice.

  40. Marion….How can you try to just dismiss the fact that ranchers are running their businesses on the public dole….making a profit devastating land that is not only under-priced, but does not belong to them? That is a significantly different thing than the cost of a night of camping.

    Beside that, I don’t defecate in the rivers, nor do I devastate the landscape. (BTW, I always have to pay to stay in National Forest campgrounds – I also use my own energy to get into the backcountry and don’t rip up the land with an ATV, maybe that is why they let me camp for free when I backpack!)

    The main point in the comment I posted above was that one reason ranchers get those government leases for a bargain basement price is BECAUSE these (our) lands could and should be used to restore the native plants and animals that were thoughtlessly and deliberately eliminated to make way for European cattle and sheep. (Well, that and because agribusiness spends hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying to make it so!!!!!)

    Ranchers are able to lease the lands so cheaply because they may need to share–with the native carnivores that rightfully belong there!
    Anne

  41. Sorry, guys it has nothing to do with profit, it has everything to do with use of the public lands. And yes you are profiting by every dollar you save by camping for free or at a below market price rate.
    If you are saving money, you are saving money whether it is to entertain yourself or provide food for a hungry nation. You’re just chintzy and want someone else to pay for your fun.

  42. I’ll give Marion one thing. She is as stubborn as a mule. Just like most right wingers. They are so steeped in ideology that they refuse to look at the facts. That is how this country got stuck in a guagmire of a war in Iraq. The true believers who are only guided by their ignorant faith will never accept reality. Ranchers are blinded by their own selfish interests and the delusional western myth they have created about themselves. They will never admit they are welfare recipients who expect handouts while the rest of us work for a living.

    Give it up, Marion. Your arguments hold no water. And start paying your fare share. I’m tired of paying for you and your children.

  43. Marion:
    You seem to forget public lands are just that – public. They are supposed to be free for the public to use. We should never have to pay for its’ usage or “upkeep”. It needs to be left alone and the remaining stands of timber roadless! Some wildlife habitat. and yes I have lived here for a long time- 18 years.

  44. Marion, that is an absurd argument! Rock climbers on public land are not turning a profit on each of their climbs. As a frequent camper, I can tell you true that I’ve not once turned a profit whilst in the wilds of the Northern Rockies! Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!

  45. Do you believe everyone should pay a market price for use of public lands? That means the ranchers, of course the government would be responsible for the mantenace of fences, for keeping the reservoirs in good repair for the cattle as well as the wildlife as the ranchers do now. Then of course to be fair they would need to pay the same AUM for the wildlife feeding on the ranchers private land, I think this would be a good deal for the rancher.
    Then we of course come to those using public land for recreation, they should pay KOA rates for camping whether in a campground or a back country campground, for use of trails and a daily basis. I believe rock climbing is priced by the hour in commercial inside rock climbing places.
    There is an old saying, be careful what you ask for, you may get it! Oh and of course parking meters in the tralhead parking lots.

  46. SAP
    I believe the 3% figure is the amount of cows that are grazed on public lands via grazing allotments, and thus receiving Government (read that public) subsidized grazing. Add the cost of such things as totally govt. subsidized predator control and add it all up it is costing the public (you and I) millions per year to give the small minority a huge unfair advantage over the rest of the country’s livestock producers. (don’t forget the tremendous damage done to the arid desert lands that most of the west consist of)

  47. The document I cite is available as a PDF file;

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/grazing/tax.pdf
    This document states “Federal public land in the eleven western states contributes only 3–5% of the beef produced annually in the U.S. ”

    Likely the difference in our figures has to do with the USDA numbers including feedlot produced animals.

    Thanks for asking for clarification.

  48. “Can you imagine the devastation to our country if our enemies control our food as well as our oil?”

    I find this statement ironic when the federal government wastes thousands of gallons of oil to fly helicopters and kill wildlife to “protect” our food.

  49. yllstonewolf:

    Where did you get your “3% of the beef eaten in the US is grown in the arid west” statistic? What are you defining as the arid west?

    I see that three percent figure in numerous places and have never seen documentation or clarification of it.

    If you want to look up where cattle live (at least by state), this National Agricultural Statistics Service website is a good place to start:

    http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Catt//2000s/2007/Catt-02-02-2007.pdf

    The pdf link there will give you the nationwide cattle inventory.

    If you look at page numbered page 3 of the PDF, you can see the state-by-state beef cow inventory. As of 1 January 2007, there were 32,894,200 beef cows-that-have-calved in the US.

    If you look at just UT, AZ, and NV, yep, combined they account for only 2.3 percent of the beef cow inventory.

    But, we’re talking about wolves and the US Northern Rockies here, so you surely want to at least include WY, MT, ID, in the mix, too.

    According to the inventory, Montana alone accounts for 4.2 percent of the nation’s beef cows. Add up WY+MT+ID+CO+OR and you get 3.9 million beef cows.

    Just those states alone, then, account for 12 percent of the nation’s beef cows. Again, that’s not counting the Dakotas, NM, UT, AZ, NV, or WA. And I’m leaving out CA, too.

    The calves those beef cows produce may end up on feedlots in other states, and they most likely will be slaughtered in KS, NE, or CO. But, by any measure, the western states of MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, NV, ID, OR, & WA account for way more than three percent of beef cows, and by extension, calf production. Maybe 15 percent or more.

    Is that a lot? Could our nation of lard-butts stand to eat 15 percent less beef? Maybe. I’m not here to argue that point. I’m here to ask how you got your 3 percent figure, because I can’t find anything like it — unless, of course, you are just referring to UT, NV, and AZ?

  50. Marion, as I mentioned before, I grew up on a cattle ranch. I know what it means to grow your own food–and food for the nation. I was also taught good stewardship of the land and an enduring respect for nature and natural balances. I think it is important to point out, for the sake of perspective, that only 3% of the beef eaten in the US is grown in the arid west. It is not as if you are “feeding the world” with your herds of “hoofed locusts”!

    Moreover, just because ranchers have existed in this area for 150 years does not mean that they have been good stewards of the land, or even that it is the right thing to do. Slavery existed in this country for a long, long time. I don’t think anyone would argue that it was right.

    What we are talking about here is not private property; we’re talking about how ranchers feel entitled to treat our public lands as private property, and how they want their lifestyles to be subsidized by the rest of us while they whine when they have to share public lands with the animals that belong there. It is clear that one reason you don’t want to share the public lands with native carnivores is because it will cause closer scrutiny of your sorry land-use practices. Why do you think you get those cheap grazing leases anyway? Because you may be required to share those public lands with the natural compliment of native carnivores and wildlife they should contain? Because they do not belong to the ranching families that feel such inappropriate ownership?

    You should be grateful that the government allows your cattle and sheep to crap all over the West’s riparian areas, for pennies on the dollar!!!! If I own a business and conduct it using poor business practices, do I have a right to expect that ANYONE would bail me out and cover my losses??? Ranchers are bloody lucky that anyone pays them one red cent for being shoddy business people!!!

    I was a volunteer wolf guardian in Idaho, my job was to patrol grazing allotments, keep wolves and sheep apart, present a realistic picture of what the interactions were and observe whether the rules governing sheep grazing on public lands were being followed. Do you know what I saw??? I saw carcasses of stupid sheep that had died from “turtling” (where they fall over in the rain and suffocate), right on the banks of rivers. They were left there to rot, less than 10 feet from the water. I believe this was done purposefully to bait wolves and teach them to consider sheep an easy food source. In fact, I am convinced that the one rancher I dealt with felt it a small sacrifice to leave a few sheep carcasses if it meant the wolves that lived on his “borrowed” allotment would begin to think of sheep as food and therefore be destroyed. Yet, such behavior is in direct violation of the rules that govern grazing allotments!

    If ranchers insist on completely neglecting their animals and refuse to practice good stewardship by removing dead animals, why should anyone pay them anything? If they insist on teaching wolves and other carnivores that sheep carcasses are food then why do they feel they have the right to whine and cry when wolves eat their precious livestock??? Notably, it wasn’t just the sheep carcasses left to rot in riparian areas that was abysmal. You should have seen the conditions that the Peruvian sheepherders had to endure!!! They were forced to stay in areas that had no potable water, and were not provided warm clothing against harsh freezing weather, all so that the fat cat ranch owner can continue with a lifestyle of the “landed” and have the expectation that someone else should cover the cost of his poor business practices.

    Every business has risks. Most of us have to contend with them ourselves!!
    Anne

  51. Well Greg (cynthia I think it was before), I didn’t feel that it was necessary to answer such a silly question, first of all you have to be able to get the property next to a church for your porn shop or gay bar (you sure are hung up on those aren’t you). The town nearest me has about 1800 people, and I can’t think of any empty property near churches for you, and I doubt you could make a living at it, but you are welcome to try.
    Now if you already had such an establishment and I decided that I didn’t like it and tried to force you out, and expected you to pay me for the privilege that would be very wrong.
    You guys are ignoring the fact that ranchers have existed in the west for nearly 200 years, and in this area for nearly 150, and been very successful. they were able to control the wolves with the same thing they controlled coyotes with….a gun.
    Interestingly enough if there was ever a time when we needed to protect our national food producers, it is now. Can you imagine the devastation to our country if our enemies control our food as well as our oil? Even if you personally don’t eat beef, the majority of us do.
    I know it is useless to argue, private property rights mean nothing if you want something someone else has, and that is a basis of what I learned as a kid to respect other people’s private property.
    I can never understand the desire to put fun for a few over food for many. Maybe I look at it different because I have raised food, not just bought it at a store, so I know it doesn’t just appear when I want it.

  52. O Canada!

  53. Marion-

    What you don’t realize is that MANY of us don’t give a damn about the ranchers. We want you to go out of business. You are destroying the land, eliminating critical wildlife habitat, degrading fish bearing streams, and displacing native species.

    You never did answer my questions about private property rights. I guess you don’t have the guts to address that issue. Private property rights are fine when ranchers bellyache about wolves. But, boy oh boy, when I want to build a porn shop or gay bar next to your church, I am certain you won’t have any problems stopping me from doing what I want on my property!

  54. Marion, ranchers in the western United States operate on such slim margins because they are trying to grow animals that evolved (Oops! Did I just use the “E” word?) in much wetter climates in Europe and Asia. The arid West is no place to try to make a living growing a water dependent, domesticated, defenseless, defecating creature.

    Take a cue from the grazing critters that were here before the European onslaught, and you’ll see that grazing requires low densities of grazers, vast open expanses, and instincts to defend against predators. What on Earth did those poor critters do before the federal government was here to protect them against wolves?

  55. marion,
    have you ever considered India, cows are number one there.

  56. Marion
    Marion
    Marion,
    DOW had and has no say in what animals are reintroduced under the ESA. They voluntarily proposed a compensation program so that ranchers might be compensated for the minuscule, compared to the whole, numbers of livestock lost to wolf predation. The livestock industry, accustomed as they are to years of feeding off the public teat, was on that like white on rice.
    What DOW does, in addition to the various compensations, is join other concerned groups and individuals in court actions to ensure that the ESA, as implemented by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon and later amended and signed by President Reagan ( there’s a couple of liberals for ya) is not circumvented by private industry such as livestock and energy conglomerates.
    (I in no way represent DOW. just stating the facts.)

  57. Well if they do as much damage with all of that 21 million as has been done with the wolves, it is very bad.
    I keep writing because I want wolf introduction supporters to have to look at what they have done to ranch families, to say nothing of Yellowstone itself. The ranchers didn’t want the wolves, they knew what would happen and they tried to tell the environmentalists. They operate on a slim margin as it is, yet wolfers refuse to take any responsibility for the problems they have caused.

  58. How How can you make that ridiculous 21 million dollar statement when you know that they take in money for many causes?! And trust me, if they compensated ANY amount it would not be enough for you. If they replaced every killed cow with a diamond studded solid gold statue of a cow it would still not be enough for you. How can the livestock industry make billions and not help out their fellow ranchers who are failing financially for whatever reason??? If mad cow disease breaks out in idaho will the affected ranchers be left to fend for themselves financially by their fellow ranchers around the country? GREED!

    Marion, I think that you are very passionate about helping ranchers. I think that your time would be much better spent if you founded a non-profit organization to collect donations to help out ranchers who lose livestock to wolves. Crying over spilled milk on this message board is helping no one…

  59. Because DOW stated they would pay for all livestock losses if the three states would agree to let the wolves be planted. I am aware they only gave their word, and not sign an agreement, although I do think it is mentioned in the original papers.
    At what number would we be allowed to have some control over our state and our property without lawsuits if it were up to you guys? Is there anyone who doesn’t believe the lawsuits won’t fly as soon as FWS announces they are ready to delist?

  60. Marion, defenders did not take in 21 million dollars just to deal with wolves. If you knew anything about defenders, you would know that they fight battles on behalf of wildlife from coast to coast. Once again you are perverting the numbers to make your twisted points. And another thing, if such an injustice is being done to ranchers in the wolf areas, where are the other thousands of ranchers in the lower 48? Why doesnt someone besides DOW, like someone in the livestock industry take some initiative and set up a wolf compensation program. I see “enviros” doing something (although inadequate by your measure) and the industry (multi billion dollar industry) doing NOTHING to help out their brother ranchers. Could it be that they are greedy and only care about themselves?

  61. Cynthia, I couldn’t have said it better. Why is it that the right wingers who bellyache about private property rights would be the first to oppose a gay bar being built next to their homes or churches. They only support private property rights when it suits there interests. Hypocrits!

    Marion, if you think private property rights are absolute, let me know the address of your church. I want to buy the lot next to it so I can build the nation’s biggest porn shop, gay bar, and head shop. I’m sure you would support such a free market development proposal since you think private property rights are sacrosanct.

  62. Marion-

    Perhaps you didn’t hear me. I don’t care if wolves kill all your livestock on private or public land. Wolves were around long before ranchers started raping the land. You, along with every other rancher, robbed wildlife of their homes, not the other way around.

    Humans don’t “own” land. We borrow it from the Creator. And wildlife, including wolves, have been grazing on lands long before people got here. Most ranchers abuse the land. Last time I checked, cows were not part of any natural ecosystem in the west. They are invasive species introduced by ranchers to cater to a meat eating culture of obese people. At least meat makes peoples’ colons rot so maybe there will be less ranchers and meat eaters a few generations down the road.

    BTW, with private property rights comes community responsibility. If you don’t believe that, then I’ll be sure to buy land next to you and build a glue factory right next to your house, buy land next to your childrens’ school and build a liquor store, and buy land next to your church and build a porn shop. After all, its my property and I can do any damn thing I want with it, right? I bet you would raise holy hell if I decided to build that porn shop next to your church.

  63. Sorry, Cynthia, I will object to any taking of private property of anyone, including you if I know about it. I’m sure my reminders that many of the wolf kills are taking place on private property make you uncomfortabel. To support that is kind of like supporting a thief robbing someone you disagree with. I’m sure you really don’t.
    By the way way back in the 80s when Bath did his survey of wyomingites and theri feelings about introducing wolves he broke respondents into classifications of: locals likely to be affected, ranchers, environmental group members, and statewide citizens overall. Guess who had the msot education? Yep, the ranchers, followed by the enviros.
    Are you willing to pay for all of the grazing that wildlife does on private land?

  64. Good God, Marion, please shut up. You and the rest of the ranchers in the west are such babies. Enough already about how wolves kill your livestock. I’m happy they do. You don’t deserve a penny from DOW or anyone else. I think it sucks that DOW gives ranchers one red cent. You should be paying US for all these years of grazing on our public lands. I wish DOW would stop paying out money to ranchers. Instead, we should all be working together to shut down every last rancher in the west.

    I’m cheering the wolves on. I hope they eat every last one of your livestock and put you out of business. Maybe then you’ll get a real job instead of sponging off the rest of us.

    Please stop posting on this site, Marion. You have no sympathy here. Go post where all the other redneck ranchers post. Oh, I forgot, most them can’t read or write.

  65. You are absolutely right that no law makes DOW pay what they do for livestock kills. They gave their word that they would cover the cost of private property that was destroyed by the introduced wolves. Only the one giving his word can determine the value of it. So far they have paid after a fashion, some folks have waited up to 2 and 3 years to get payment for confirmed kills. the hoops the ranchers ahve to jump thru to get confirmed or even probable (half price sale) are very significant, and I understand the paperwork is pretty involved.
    Lest you think this is coming just from the goodness of their hearts, let me give you a couple of numbers from 2005, the last year I could find numbers. They took in 21 million and paid out 140,000. Ranchers paid out approximately 9 times that according to Ed Bangs statement that ranchers lose approximately 9 animals for everyone paid for. They received no donations for that. Just a lot of name calling.
    Take a look at this web site, how would you like to have them targetting you even as you were losing thousands of dollars in the process?
    http://www.heartofthewolf.org/Murderers.htm

  66. Marion-

    Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn if wolves kill your cows and sheep. You shouldn’t be grazing them on public lands. The more of your cattle and sheep wolves kill the better. Hopefully, the wolves will kill enough of your livestock to finally get you and other welfare ranchers off OUR lands.

    Perhaps a Democratic president and Congress will zero out welfare subsidizes for all those ranchers feeding at the public trough. If not, we can only hope wolf populations will explode in the West and take out every welfare rancher and his livestock. Then our lands can be restored after decades of degradation from cows and sheep and from fat ranchers tearing up the terrain on their ATVs.

  67. among other of your continuous stretching the facts Marion is the fact that DOW does not HAVE to pay one red cent for anything. but that never stopped the livestock industry from showing up on the doorstep with there hat in hand.

  68. Wyoming would be very happy with a liberal hunting season, but getting that season is going to be the problem. Enviros will fight forever to prevent hunting of the wolves, and they have the money to keep it tied up in courts as they search for the right judges to keep the wolf population growing.
    Obviously they lied when they said the three states had to share 30 packs/and 300 wolves we now have more than 1500 counted wolves and who knows how many uncounted? That is not nearly enough to head off lawsuits by wolf lovers who want more and more.
    The money has to be spent making sure the things are protected, and that “enough” of them are always present. The state will also be paying for the wolf kills that DOW is supposed to be paying for now. It may be of no importance to you, but the plan will also have to assure the well being of other wildlife that has to either compete with the wolves or provide food for them.
    I am not happy that we have to take money that could go for other things in our state to raise wolves to make city folks happy, but we have no choice. I am not nearly as worried about the state G&F ripping us off as I am about the enviro groups ripping us off to raise critters for their pleasure.

  69. Jeff, give up. You are throwing your time away arguing. Marion knows it is a scam, but she will never admit it. There is not one person who can look at the situation and not realize that this is an opportunity for politicians to steal from the taxpayers to pay politically connected cronies way above market value to eliminate wolves (something that can be done for free with a liberal hunting season… assuming that there are enough people who want to invest the time to hunt them).

  70. Marion,
    From the Wyoming wolf management plan
    POPULATION MANAGEMENT
    Population Objectives: According to Wyoming Statute 23-1-304 and interpretation of said
    statute by the Wyoming Attorney Generals Office, upon delisting, Wyoming will maintain a
    minimum of 15 packs within the State including YNP, GTNP, the Parkway, the NER, and
    potentially the Wind River Indian Reservation. Seven of the 15 packs will be maintained outside
    YNP, GTNP, and the Parkway. Since the Commission does not have the legal authority to
    actively manage wolves within the National Parks, its management emphasis will be applied to
    maintaining 7 packs that inhabit primarily areas outside the Parks.
    So again, Wyoming is saying that it will spend more per year to manage 7 packs; ~100 wolves, than is now spent to manage 1300+ wolves in all three states.(latest count is up to 1500+. cool).
    And you do not think this is a rip off!!

  71. Jeff, I made no claim to it being wyoming’s park, it is however over 90% within the state of Wyoming. Let’s see if I can explain this so you can understand. Wyoming is required to maintain 8 packs of wolves inside of Yellowstone and 7 outside. A decrease in numbers in EITHER place means that the wolves again go on the list….providing they get off, that is.
    Look on some of the Yellowstone chat sites and you will see I am not the only one coming back from Yellowstone seeing very few elk. There are two breeding bulls and about 40 cows total on the 7 mile stretch of the Madison that had several hundred cows and 10-15 bull only a few years ago. It has dropped steadily for about 5 or 6 years. Will there even be any by next winter?
    Norris has one crippled up bull and 3 cows, none of which appear to be ready to breed. Again there was over a hundred cows and half a dozen or more bulls. Gibbon Meadows is empty, Elk Park is empty. Mammoth has one big bull and one small bull, plus I have heard reports of #6 and #10 that were dehorned last year, but have not seen any photos and did not see any sign of them myself, there are about 35 cows there. There are a few loners here and there, so where is the food going to come from long term for 8 packs of hungry wolves, several hundred grizzlies, plus the black bears and cougars? It has nothing to do with Wyoming “owning” Yellowstone, it has everything to do with enough food for the predators within it.

  72. There you go again Marion. It is not Wyoming’s park. It is a national park and it is the nation that will maintain the population within the park by letting nature (gasp!) achieve the balance. As for not the slightest clue, well what can I say except you finally admitting it is a first step.

  73. How were they killed off then in the lower 48 with none of the technology we have today (helicopters etc.)?

  74. Wyoming will have no say over park management, but the rules call for us to maintain 8 packs of wolves there….even if there is nothing left to eat.
    Wanting to keep the number at 100 is one thing, actually being able to control them is another. They are not that easy to catch up with, much less kill. FWS is often not able to find the wolves responsible for depradation. In fact the have been known to lose track of a 25 pack with collars! Makes for great tale telling by those who have not the slightest clue what is actually going on.

  75. Marion, why do you expect me to support you? Ranchers are the biggest welfare recipients in the country. Get off the public dole, get a real job, and stop begging for money like some lazy street person. I hope the wolves put you and every other irresponsible rancher who doesn’t pen his animals at night, or who leaves carcasses out in the pasture, essentially luring wolves onto their property, out of business. I work for a living and don’t expect taxpayers to pay for my food, clothes, and housing. But ranchers just want to sit on the porch, swigging their corn liquor, and open their monthly welfare checks.

  76. I’m with Greg. Marion and her welfare rancher friends should get their subsidized cows off our public lands! Wolves are here to stay, Marion. And relics like welfare ranchers will hopefully be a thing of the past soon. I get so annoyed when wussy ranchers cry about wolves and then demand that I give them my money so they can put their stinkin cows out to destroy MY public lands. Ranchers are some of the most embarrassing panzies. They always want some handout. Get a real job and stop expecting me to support you!

  77. Marion- You are such a bore. I hope all of you whiny ranchers go out of business. I am tired of subsidizing your welfare ranching with my hard earned tax dollars. Wolves were in North America long before ranchers started raping the land. Move aside, give room for the wolves, and stop your belly aching. And while you are at it, you and your ranching buddies should reimburse all of us who have supported you through taxes.

  78. But Marion outside of the park, which Wyoming will not be involved in any management, your state will kill off all but a bare minimum leaving about a 100 or so left. and saying that it will cost more to manage a bare minimum population at a cost more than what is now being spent for ~ 1300 wolves over three states.

  79. First of all Jeff, I have explained some of the things that we will be paying for including managing the wolves, paying for livestock losses…all of them, not just the ones that can’t be gotten out of. If you want details, you should write to Wyoming G&F and demand an answer. I am merely a taxpayer in the state and resident of course, I don’t have any control over the budget of individual departments. I bet you cannot detail the expenses of each department in your state either.
    Steve, I am doubting that the situation even happened as is shown in the photo, and yes it is vile, whether it is actually a method of killing pups or a fake used to cast those that someone disagrees with in a bad light. I have never heard of anyone using something like that to kill pups, much less seen it documented.

  80. I have read about hooks that have been used to kill wolves (i believe in Rick McIntyre’s society of wolves but I could be wrong). They eat them and then pull their stomaches out of their bodies trying to get away from them. If the picture is fake does it make the act any less vile? I noticed you didnt comment on the picture at all. You talk a big game about predator control. Do you have nothing to say about what that actually entails (out of sight out of mind??).

  81. OK Marion,
    so what is your take on why it will cost the citizens of Wyoming more per year to manage wolves than it now costs the federal govt. to manage wolves in all three states combined. Or is the state of Wyoming just ripping off it’s citizens?

  82. Marion, I am not at all secretive about what I do for a living. I work in the medical device industry and have for many years. I am a wildlife photographer and poet on my own time. I grew up on a cattle ranch and my father lives in your neck of the woods. So it would seem that our only real differences are the way we view the natural balance of things, and good stewardship of the wild.
    Anne

  83. Steve, no we did neither, my Dad shot them when he could….He was a good shot & the coyote didn’t suffer as much as the sheep did.
    Have you snoped that picture? I question the authenticity of it, but if it makes you feel good………………..

  84. By “contend” do you mean that you put fish-hooks through their heads? Or did the federal government do your dirty work for you as most ranchers do…

  85. Anne, I am rather surprised that you would demand to know what I do for a living without revealing your occupation. Did you forget yours?
    At any rate I am a Registered Nurse and Certified Nurse-Midwife. I did grow up on a Wyoming sheep ranch, so I know what predators do even though we only had to contend with coyotes.

  86. OK marion,
    so what is your take on why it will cost the citizens of Wyoming more per year to manage wolves than it now costs the federal govt. to manage wolves in all three states combined.

  87. I often thought that her comments read like “talking points”. Especially since the same ones appear over and over on different stories.

  88. Marion, I have three questions for you;

    1. What do you do in a typical day – that is, how do you make your living?
    2. Does the ranching industry pay you by the word or by the post for your constant harassment of various groups with which you (and apparently they) disagree?
    3. Do you even care that you are posting things that are patently untrue – and which have been proven so in a myriad of instances (on this blog and others) in the past?

  89. Rip off of whom by the state of Wyoming? We all understand perfectly that the problem was created to dump in our laps. We understand we not only have to pay what the feds have been paying, but also what DOW has been paying, plus the actual losses families are enduring.
    We were ripped off by those that decided we could pay to keep them entertained watching wolves.
    I’ve asked before when was the last time you wwent to Yellowsotne and saw how few elk are left?
    By the way I heard on the news tonight that the study they are doing on the elk and wolves in sunlight Basin in wyoming has already shown the pregnancy rate among the cows is down to 59%, extremely low. So the cows may be run and stressed to the point they never get pregnant, as well as the heavy predation that causes the very low calf retention, teens to 21 or so. should be about 40-60.

  90. elky,
    gather away. but include with that who filed each lawsuit and what exactly was being litigated. Then include the outcome of each lawsuit with the findings of the court. What Wyoming is trying is nothing more that a blatant rip-off.

  91. Stevec, when was the last time you were in Yellowstone and Gardiner, MT. It is true that I do not know the name of the restaurant that closed. However the huge gift store snack bar on the north end of the main street in gardiner is now empty, the service station jsut before one crosses the bridge to the motel area is closed. Does that sound like an economic boom to you? Probably does.
    If you saw the elk herds in the Park prior to the wolf introduction and not since, you would be shocked now at the handful of elk left.
    by the way, the elk permits for the late elk hunt at Gardiner dropped from 2800+ before wolves to 100 the last 2 years, don’t knwo if there will be any this year.

  92. I asked Ralph about the economic benefit of wolves and this is what he said.

    “To Elkhunter,

    Idaho wolves generate very little income and they generate very little cost too. Almost all of the cost is from minor livestock depredations and a much higher (and by that I mean probably unnecessary) high expenditure to kill the wolves by unduly high tech means (such as shooting them from helicopters instead of trapping them.

    In addition, most of the costs and benefits of wolves are of the difficult to quantify, non-market variety.”

    The only place that I could say generates any sort of significant income is YNP. And that would be hard to quantify the exact amount, I am pretty confident it is not in the 45 million dollar a year range that pro-wolf advocates state. I have asked many of them for data, or sources, I talked with a rep from DOW concerning the matter and he sent me an article from an individual that interviewed 1800 coming to YNP. He concluded from those interviews that they generate over 30 million a year in revenue. Which I thought was entertaining.
    Wolves in the Berkshires? I also lived there for just under a year, that place is pretty highly populated, scattered little towns all over the place. You would have lots of human/wolf/pet conflicts happening consistently. In reference to your elk hunting numbers you should realize that they do that on a state wide basis. I have asked Ralph many times for a unit by unit break down of success rates. In the southern half of ID there are not near the wolf populations as there is in Central ID. And units 76 and 66A are some of the most successful units in ID, and they have no or very little wolf impacts. So on “average” you might have consistent success, but the areas without wolves are carrying the load, but after awhile those areas will get overhunted and success rates will fall, thats just my opinion. I know in MT for the late migration hunt, they used to issue 2500 tags. This year I believe that they are only going to issue 100. In my opinion wolves have something to do with that.
    Elkhunter

  93. “You don’t have the right to have an opinion on YOUR money being wasted in another state.” This was sarcasm… I am sorry if you did not catch it. I am arguing that I have a stake in what goes on in the west just as you have a stake in what goes on in the east. I think we are in agreement on this point.

    And between upstate new york, the maine woods, new hampshire, and the berkshires there is plenty of room for wolves in the northeast. People having problems in MA is simply stubborn uninformed people who are unwilling to adapt to live with coyotes. They could keep their pets indoors to prevent animals from getting killed but instead they insist that the state spend money to kill coyotes…

    Also, just as you say the pine nut crop has been a bumper year, the number of elk taken has not changed from year to year, indicating that wolves have not affected the elk hunt.

    And you and marion all gloss over economic benefits brought on by wolves… I know Marion argues that wolves bring no economic benefit (we have all heard her talk about that nameless restaurant that went out of business in Gardiner) but I personally know a handful of people, myself included, who travel to yellowstone every year exclusively to see wolves. They could go anywhere in the country but they go there and spend thousands just to see these animals. A few hundred like us means big money to the area.

    http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/science_and_economics/conservation_economics/fact_sheet_wolf_ecotourism.pdf

  94. Steve C,
    Dont assume that I have not lived in Boston, cause wait, I did. In Belmont, I am sure you know where that is at. I also lived in Dorchester. And yes the city of Boston was in desperate need of some sort of traffic solution. There was lots of corruption and disappearing of millions and millions of dollars.
    It does not matter where your from when federal lands/projects are concerned? That type of attitude is what bugs me the most. The I dont care, deal with it attitude. Of course you dont care, your not effected by it. And exactly where in the NE are you planning on putting wolves? Maine? I went to NH alot, not to mention N. MA. I feel you would have quite a circus with that on your hands. Maine has good habitat, but they will spread quickly, already people in MA would not let their pets out for fear of coyotes eating them, at least in the Berkshires. Its that attitude of ME, that bugs Steve, like I said I dont really care if we have wolves, but I think the amount we have now is sufficient, and I sure as hell dont want them in UT.
    Jeff E,
    Why all the concern with this money issue? Like I said before you know tens of millions of dollars has been spent on this wolf re-introduction and you have not complained once, nor will you ever complain, the same with Steve. If you want to make this a money issue I can gather the costs of this wolf circus over the last 12-13 years, and you know it will be ALOT. And thats probably not counting the money that has been spent fighting DOW, Sinapua and other conservation groups.

    By the way Steve, you do realize that the pine nut crop was a bumper year again. 3 years in a row according to Ralph. So that is an irrelevant issue.

  95. I was off on the number of that first attack, I guess I was confusing it with the Idaho kills. Here is an article about those early kills.

    http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2004/05/16/build/state/30-wolves.inc

    As to why he didn’t hear them, he was 80 for heaven’s sake. My bedroom is probably no more than 300 feet from where my neigbors horses are, I don’t hear them at night and don’t know that I would hear the commotion if wolves hit. It doesn’t matter ,why do you have the right to insist that he deal with this? I don’t care if you live across the road, you should never have been allowed to do this to private citizens….jsut for your pleasure.
    Just exactly what kind of protection to you think his brother should have gotten in place in less than 24 hours?
    There is a lot more to supporting the wolves than paying a little hear and there for livestock. They have to be protected remember?
    That means tracking and counting before some fool decides they need to fly in some more to bolster the population because there are a few cows left.
    I’m not sure where you get your figures about the cost of wolf management, but I do know that the Nez Perce estimate a cost of 10 grand for every helicopter flight to kill wolves….and they do not get any every time. FWS is killing over 100 wolves per year, well I guess the states of Idaho and Montana are already doing the killing in their state. FWS has killed 44 so far in Wyoming.
    He is another article that kind of lays out the sheep kills the brothers had until they were forced to allow DOW to come on their property and build special fences if they wanted to be reimubursed for further kills. The old fellow left the gate open this spring one night and of course the wolves got most of the rest of his sheep, and I’m sure he got no money. But of course wolves do not kill just to kill do they? We must be lying about all of the bodies. Also he had all of those bodies to dispose of. I know it is his fault for living in predator country…..even if you had to haul them in.

    http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/11/19/news/regional/a1329c0badf4bdc787256f500073fa3f.txt

  96. Then re-read the article linked above and note where the amount the Wyoming government is going to stick it to the residents of Wyoming per year is MORE THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SPENT PER YEAR FOR THE WHOLE WOLF RESTORATION PROGRAM IN ALL THREE STATES COMBINED. What do you want to bet Robert Wharff is up for one of those plums.

  97. Go Steve! Go Steve!

  98. Marion, yet another unsubstantiated story. I might actually respect your opinion if you backed any of it up. I know, the evil enviro liberal media has a conspiracy against ranchers… You never responded to my thoughts on the wyoming wolf budget (the original theme of this talkback) being many times the amount that is spent to reimburse ranchers a year. Dont you think that wyoming’s money would be better spent reimbursing families for lost livestock and spending money to help them avoid wolf interractions in the first place? It would save them a bunch (but they wouldnt be able to give their cronie friends high paying jobs).

    Also, where I am from does not matter when federal lands/projects are involved. This is especially relevant for the other half of the country with a northeast wolf reintroduction in the works. How wolves are dealt with there may dictate how we deal with them up here. I am sure you have many opinions on Massachusetts wasting billions of federal dollars on the big dig.. but wait… You don’t have the right to have an opinion on YOUR money being wasted in another state.

    Also, WOLVES DO NOT WIPE OUT WILDLIFE! For your theory to be true, canada and alaska would have been completely devoid of wildlife when they were first settled because wolves killed it all. Do you even think about these wacky things before you say them? And grizzly bears are having food problems because of whitebark pine trees dying. Just like you to link two completely unrelated things.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/science/30bear.html?ex=1327813200en=9ba8339901252668ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss

  99. Wow! I can’t say as I’ve ever heard of that particular sheep massacre, Marion. You know what’s interesting though? Your description raises some interesting questions about the husbandry practices in this tale.

    How is it that: 1) 50 sheep got killed/mutilated right under the nose of the person who was supposed to be tending to them? 2) Given the unfortunate events on that day (if they happened at all), why didn’t sheep rancher number two (the brother) not put in place increased security measures until it was clear that the wolves had moved on? Talk about “lambs to the slaughter”!

  100. I cannot tell you WHY enviros/libs want to take over our private property….a need for control, I would suppose. But I do know it is happening as a direct result of the wolves that were brought in, and there is not much that the owner can legally do about it, unless they can catch them in the act of actually killing their livestock….and it is happening on private property. The first rancher to loose a lot of sheep, a gentleman 80 years of age by the way, was eating his breakfast and saw magpies flocking around the corral. He went out and found I believe it was right at 50 head of dead, mutilated sheep. His brother got hit for about 30 the next night. FWS did not want to try to control the wolves until each had two kills within a short period of time, despite the fact they have adjoining homes. This is only two families.
    If a family looses enough animals they may be given a shoot on sight permit good for a limited amount of time.

  101. And I am not saying that I agree completely with Marion, but Jeff in my conversations with you in the past I get the impression that you feel that all hunters and ranchers complaints are absurd. I could be wrong, but thats the impression I get.
    Elkhunter

  102. Jeff E,

    I was simply curious about where he lived. Sometimes people fall into the out of sight out of mind mentality. Lets say I think immigration is okay, and I live in North Dakota, and I think that all humans should have the right to come to America in any way. Now living in North Dakota illegal immigrants might not be a big problem. Now lets say you Jeff E you live in a border town in AZ. And you deal constantly with crime, drugs and labor issues that deal with illegal immigration. It would be very easy for me to say deal with it and that all people have the right to come to America. On the other hand, you probably would disagree with me greatly, considering its in your backyard and you deal with it constantly and see it first hand. Thats my only point Jeff E. And why are you worried about them spending money, you did not say one thing when the spent millions and millions of dollars bringing them here. You have not said one word on the millions and millions of dollars spent in litigation and lawsuits dealing with the wolves. Its easily over 50 million that has been spent on these wolves. And when delisting happens, more millions will be spent then. But of course Jeff E you dont care, because its something you feel strongly about, but when Marion defends something she feels strongly about, you call her a fool.
    Elkhunter

  103. Wow, Marion! That’s exactly why we need you to keep posting here — to purvey the truth! While you’re at it, why don’t you give us a dissertation on exactly why us “liberal/enviros” want to “take” your “persona (sic) property rights”? We’re just tingling with anticipation!

  104. That is the usual liberal response. Sounds kind of like the Dems who called General Petraeus a liar before he even had a chance to speak. If the truth is not what a liberal/enviro wants to hear, it has to be a lie. You perceive yourselves as saviors not invaders of other people’s homes and property, but that is what the whole enviro movement has become: a taking of persona property rights.

  105. Marion,
    horseapples.

  106. By the way many of the livestock killing, most in fact are not only occuring on private property they are happening within sight of a house. Does the rancher leave his dog out and get it killed too? One dog was attacked as it’s owner was walking it to the barn to shut it in and try to save it after others ahd been killed. I’m sure you wouldn’t mind donating your pet to that fate would you?

  107. Jeffe, you obviously are not from Wyoming. There is an oil and mining boom with resulting high wages. Fast food restaurants start wages at $9-10. Professional biologists get paid salaries commesurate with their education. In additon there is all of the taxes to pay on top of that.
    It is very kind of you to haul livestock killers into our ranchland then say you will consider “letting” us do limited management. When this thing was foisted off on us, we were told we “had” to raise a total of 300 wolves for the three states, we now have enarly 5 times that and WE can’t be considered trustworthy. Do you think our word means as little to us as yours obviously does to you?
    There were wolves documented in Yellowstoen at the time the trucked the wolves in, in fact they had the wolves caught and penned when documentation was proved, and it held the whole thing up until a judge releaased them to keep them from dying. I believe they lost one or two even so from the stress. At that point the story changed from no wolves in Yellowstone to not enough wolves in Yellowstoen although the one that was killed was a 2 year old, which would indicate a breeding population.
    Not only are the wolves destroying people’s livlihood, and their animals, they are destroying our wildlife. I don’t know if any of you go to Yellowstone, I have been going for 65+ years, and I want to cry when I see how few elk are left. Just about the biggest herd left is on the lawns at Mammoth because they feel safer from the wolves there. Nonetheless there are few elk to be seen on the hills around there. The calf retention rate is in the teens and in the Norris herd was in single digits, but that herd is pretty nearly gone now.
    The northern herd dropped from 19,000 the year prior to the wolf import to 6700 last year and even that is a funny report. In March of 2006 they counted 3649 elk, but said it was just a classification count that they could not do a population count in March of 2006. In December 2006 when they released the 6700 they said it was 150 more than the March 2006 count. I wrote and asked Ed Bangs why the discrepency. He wrote back that he only writes the reports, someone else counts them. I’d need to write to Montana F&G or the NPS & ask them. A fellow named boyce just did a “research” paper on the northern elk herd and came to the conclusion that the effect on the elk has been negligible! Does any of this explain to you why we do not believe or trust the wolf proponents?
    Do you realize that FWS is killing several times the number of wolves they brought in EVERY single year? That is a job they are palming off on the states. Right now when no part of the Wyoming plan has yet been accepted, Wyoming has spent the money for GPS tracking of elk and wolves in the Sunlight Basin that has been so hard hit.
    Grizzly bears are being moved from ooutside of Cody when they get into bee hives, join cattle on feed lines etc. One sow and cub were just euthanized for tearing a camper apart, both were skinny and probably would not have survived the winter. A Yellowsotne grizzly that was too comfortable around humans and was trying to obtain food where they were, although not expecially human food, was sent to a research facility in Washington state I beleive. She too was severely undernourished, and they did not beleive she would have survived a winter. Do you just suppose it is possible that we have too many predators artificially impossed on a relative small area? Maybe, just maybe you guys do not know everything?
    By the way a wolf in the Lamar area was hit and killed by a ranger last night or this morning when it ran across the highway. It evidently was comfortable hanging out close to people. Last winter some were begging in Hayden Valley.

  108. elk hunter,
    what does where Steve, or any one else, lives have to do with any thing? the vast majority of land that are inhabited by wolves, and that welfare livestock grazing takes place on, is federal land. Read the article linked above slowly. It specifically states that no monies would come from fish and game revenues. Then find a calculator and try to figure out exactly how much Wyoming is trying to screw the citizens of Wyoming. For example they are claiming that personnel costs will be 1.3 million annually. This is in a state that is at near the bottom in wages nationally. For 15 employees, eight of which are part time, that averages ~ 86,400. Even you are not that dense elky.

  109. I agree, elkhunter, that wolves should be reasonably managed with perhaps a hunting season. However, I feel that there is too much of an unjustified rush to kill large numbers of wolves without first exploring ways to live WITH wolves. Also, too many people dwell on the past instead of thinking about common sense ways to handle wolves in the present. The reintroduction happened and nothing can change that. I honestly feel that if people would stop being dramatic they could accept that there are ways that wolves and ranching can coexist.

    By the way, I am not from the tri-state area. Predators are near and dear to my heart though. I spent my undergraduate years studying eastern coyotes and in my area we are currently dealing with a state that wants to vastly increase coyote killing based on entirely unscientific and unfounded fears of the animal. I see many of the same scapegoating going on with our coyotes that goes on with your wolves.

  110. Steve, do you live in ID, MT, WY area that the wolves inhabit? You and Marion both have valid points, but I also think there should be some common ground, yes there will be wolves and they are here to stay, but I think the days of letting the wolves populate at will, all the while we control other animal populations, will come to an end soon. I dont agree that all wolves should be killed, but I do think they should be managed. This topic is brought up alot, but when they are delisted hunters and sportsman will be funding the management of wolves. So, naturally we would want a voice on what happens. But I dont think that 50% of all wolves should be killed, but I do think they need to be managed, just like cougars bears etc.
    Elkhunter

  111. I have a strange feeling that no matter what wolves were reintroduced (i would still like to see some scientific documentation outlining these differences you talk about) you would still be moaning and complaining. Defenders of wildlife pays out an average of 40000 a year to reimburse for lost livestock. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that not all wolf kills can be confirmed. Lets say that livestock are killed at a rate of ten times what defenders pays out. That would cost 400,000 a year to reimburse ranchers for lost livestock. Why then is Wyoming going to spend 2 million a year to control wolves when they could take 25% of that money and reimburse all confirmed and non confirmed wolf kills? Could it be that your politicians want to keep this issue controversial? The problem is, people like you want to solve all of your problems through killing…

  112. Marion
    re your last post; horseapples

  113. You are forgetting one little detail, the wolves were pretty much taken care of in this country until folks who only care about getting their own way decided to haul them in from Canada, dumpt them out and say sic ’em!
    The wolves trucked in were not the “wrong” wolves they were different, as in larger. They were exactly right for the purpose they were intended for, to eliminate ranching and hunting. Interestingly enough it would seem that they might be more inclined toward huge packs than the original wolves. I read a lot of history and even thuogh there are a lot of journal reports describing certain wolves, and of the course the havoc they caused, I have yet to come across a description of a pack of 10-20 animals hunting together in those days. Those huge packs are one of the things that make it so difficult to control them, there is no guard dog existing that can cope with them. In fact even griz aren’t always able to come out the winner.
    The sheer destructiveness of termites is the only comparrison that I can think of that would make you see how tying your hands as far as controlling them, would be similar to tying our hands as far as controlling wolves, then insisting that preventing damage is your responsibility, as you insist it is our responsibility to protect our property against your wolves, but the wolves msut be protected first and foremost. They can’t even be chased for Pete’s sake unless in the actual act of killing, not before and not after.
    I can’t blame you for not wanting to admit the truth of what has been done to fellow Americans for the sake of wolves.
    By the way the great extirpation of wolves in Yellowstone NP consisted of a documented 136 wolves over a period of 42 years. Wolves were never in recorded history a big factor in Yellowstone.

  114. You lost me… your points are rediculous enough when you are talking about actual wolves, you might want to drop all of this termite business because we all know what you are trying to say (I have read your “wrong type of wolf” argument literally dozens of times.

    I will not go and do someone elses job for them. When you get into ranching you accept all that goes along with ranching including disposing of dead animals (which is a smart thing to do in wolf/bear/coyote country). Those ranchers are damned lucky defenders gives them a red cent considering defenders gets nothing but badmouthed by nitwits like you. I work in a lab doing cancer and heart research and I would never ask someone to come in and do my job no matter how difficult things get.

    Will you reimburse me for the few thousand I and my friends have spent in wyoming over the past few years while we were there to watch wolves? Must total about 10 grand for all of us and we could have vacationed anywhere but chose to go to wyoming for the wolves. You can make the check out to cash…

  115. Nope, I don’t need your $4, but you might send 3 or 4 grand to some of the folks that have lost 3 or 4 cows and they were too deteriorated by the time FWS finally got there to “confirm”. Or you might go volunteer to help dig holes to bury an 900# cow when it is 95 degrees out and bury 30 sheep when it is -30. Those little chores are not compensated for even if the cows and sheep are, but it is mandatory that the carcasses be disposed of fast.
    I’m sure that we could bring in bigger more aggresive termites because you do not have an adequate breeding population left especially if someone hired an exterminator at some point 150 years ago. Then when they ate your wood, all you would need to do is prove you tried to control them, but of course you cannot kill them, and you would have to prove that they were our termites not your native termites or the neighbor’s termites, or a mix. That of course negates the whole payment. Oh yes you would have to prove that the damage was actually casued by termites, no possibility of dry rot, which can look similar.

  116. That depends… Were these termintes historically in my area? Since they have been removed have different strains of termites filled the ecological niche of the termites you want to reintroduce? Will nonprofit groups reimburse me at greater than market value for the wood that the termites eat? Do I live in a subsidized welfare house on government property at a cost to the taxpayer? Will corrupt politicians use misplaced fear of the termites to distract people like you from the real issues damaging your life and property?

    Marion, the 2 million dollar cost to manage wolves in wyoming (assuming that it all comes from the state of wyoming with no grants from the feds which I highly doubt) would equal 4 dollars per year for each of the 500,000 people in wyoming per year. Do you need me to send you four dollars? Is that what you need? How about this… i will donate an extra four dollars to defenders of wildlife in your name.

  117. Would it be ok to plant new strains of termites where you live? Individuals would of course be responsible for all of the damages they cause. Tax dollars would only be used to get tehm started and thriving, and to protect them.

  118. Marion, it is called LIFE. My state taxes pay for plenty of things i want and even more I don’t want. Now stop your whining… Are wolves the only thing that you don’t like your tax dollars going towards? And a couple million is a drop in the pan compared to the HALF BILLION that public grazing costs us a year…

  119. I know what you mean, I am forced to subsidize yoour recreation too, and you do not even provide any food for people, nor any habitat for wildlife. Guess that is the way it works.

  120. Marion, it is interesting to consider…entitlements…

    As an American taxpayer, I too have paid the bill to have wolves restored. As such, I expect that investment to be protected through good stewardship.

    I am also forced to subsidize the growing of livestock, whether or not I like the idea. I believe this subsidy is called “grazing allotments on public land”…

  121. Yep, and half a million men, women, and children are expected to pay for this boon doggle they didn’t want or need. But it makes the city folk so happy to know that someone has to deal with the “old time western” problems, and they certainly feel it is fair to have what they want and make a handful of other people pay for it for them. They are “entitled”.

  122. Pingback: Wyoming heating up « Ralph Maughan’s Wildlife News