In the Valley of the Wolves

Friend and filmmaker Bob Landis has a new special airing on the PBS series Nature this Sunday called In the Valley of the Wolves. The eight minute promo piece below should be enough to get you to watch the special, but if you need more prodding, consider this: Bob Landis gives selflessly of his time, chronicling on film the remarkable comeback of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. He does it because he is called to do it. He does it because he believes that it is both honorable and important for the world to get a more intimate glimpse of these incredibly important carnivores.

On any given day, one can find Bob Landis at the roadside somewhere in Yellowstone. For this film, Bob spent months following the Druid Peak pack as they went about their business, fought with their rivals, played, hunted and howled. Don’t miss this rare and compelling look into the lives of wolves. You’ll be glad you did.


175 responses to “In the Valley of the Wolves

  1. To all,
    I happened upon this thread…
    You all make some valid points, even marion came around. But I say to Elk Hunter. My Brother, we, are not against hunting. When animal is humanely harvested, by just means. we celebrate the hunt, with respect for the animal and the land we are privilaged to live on. We are merely travellers here, not owners. So it is upon us to care for mother Earth and all it’s creatures. White men destroyed Bison to starve Indians. Destroyed wolves because of competition of grazing land and Elk. Yes we battled for land as well but like ALL of mother Earth, we are not all good too. You can not have good without evil. Light without darkness.
    Now, white men have learned their ways and have tried to bring Brother wolf back home.
    Wolves cull themselves, there numbers aren’t even close to where they should be. Hunter/poachers and ranchers who refuse to understand, repeat false information about management, when it is STILL all about competition. Greed of man. The number of cattle/sheep killed by wolves is very small in comparison to the number of wolves. Like 1 out of every 25,000 cows and 1 out of every sheep. Also, there are programs in play to restore the ranchers loss’s.
    To the respectful hunters and the others who care….
    You hear…You understand……the Creator refects your image when you give of yourself, especially when it’s for those who cannot speak.

  2. i think that was a wonderful video-and think the wolves SHOULD be reintroduced into europe. they are beautiful creatures and have a right to live where they belong.I am all for the POSITIVE side of things!
    Iook forward to hearing what you think about this!

  3. Jeff E,
    I dont really mind activists that much. The two I cant really stand are PETA and the Human Society. Everyone can have voices, I just get bugged when these organizations harass and bother people who are actually doing something versus just causing problems.

  4. Elky,
    Just curious. What is your criteria for determining if an organization is “activist”, and why you think that is a negative thing. Or should we all just fall in line with never a dissenting voice on any subject.

  5. Elkhunter,

    I think those links indicate that DOW in assisting in the purchase of those lands. I don’t know if that means they contribute actual money or not. Regardless, the trend is that more and more private property is being purchased to preserve wildlife habitat, either by organizations or by individuals. I don’t know how this will effect hunting but I am sure that it means a reduction in the numbers of cattle that compete with wildlife for forage. Maybe there could be an open season on range cattle until there numbers are well in hand. Just a thought.

  6. Jeff E,
    I did a search on them, I am glad to see there is one activist organization that does more than just sue.
    I researched a bunch of those links, and I could not find very many that detailed them actually buying land. Alot of them were posts about different organizations buying land.

  7. Here are a couple of articles on TNC. Some of what they buy at a reduced price for “conservation” is then sold the the US government at a profit., and taken off the tax rolls leaving locals to make up the difference in the tax base.
    How do you feel about the cattle they raise on ranches and graze on public lands, is that ok?

  8. Does anyone know when/if this is going to air again? I am fascinated by this entire story (the book about same is fantastic) and am bummed that I missed this special.


  9. Elkhunter,
    I did a search on Defenders of Wildlife for purchase of Private Land for use as wildlife habitat. I tried to copy the link. I don’t know if it will work. But it is a list of 75 seperate instances where DOW assists in the purchase of Private land for habitat.

  10. Elk hunter ,
    look up the Nature Conservancy. Or maybe you did and convieniently left out what they are doing for habitat conservation.

  11. Cat,
    The only thing I could find on DOW about buying habitat was $10,000 grants to 6 different states to do some research. No actual buying of land. I did find lots of lawsuits though. And habitat with cows is better than no habitat at all in my opinion.

  12. Marion,
    Your buffalo pictures proves nothing except that large ungulates including cattle, when confined to small areas will damage that area. Bison are no exception. They evolved to migrate over enormous ranges. If this a a Bison farm it is the same as a cattle ranch. If this is a picture within the park, of course the large number of bison are going to cause damage when confined to the relatively small area of the valeys of the park. Small when compared to the area they are used to roaming. And look what happens when they venture outside the park. They are hazed and harrassed back into the confines of the park. Their natural instinct to migrate is natures built in defense of the land. They are not allowed to follow that instinct, so of course damage to the land they are confined to will suffer to some degree.


    I believe their is an effort by DOW and Nature Conservancy to purchase these lands as they come available. To what degree they are successful, I am not sure. There was a discussion on Ralphs blog the other day about that very thing. Also purchasing grazing leases are another option that some groups are exploring. Ted Turner is purchasing land and funding the purchase of lands as well. Wealthy individuals are doing the same. I believe the Galines’ on Horse butte in Montana are a good example of this. You should check into that story in New West News, if you haven’t already. I have a very good friend who has purchased more that 4000 acres in CO. He has not allowed grazing on it for sevral years and has removed all of the barbed from one piece and is in the process of removing it from another. He does allow hunting by invitation, and that is alright.

    I am aware and pleased that RMEF is purchasing land to preserve habitat. As long as they don’t run cattle on it. Unless they are going to have an open season on cattle. I would vote for that.

  13. TNC is a big landholder, the largest in the US I believe. They do some ranching, drilling, mining etc. I think I read the other day their income finally topped a billion per year. That buys a lot of control. They also do provide some habitat, and interestingly enough they too have grazing permits for cattle…..that they use.

  14. One other thing, alot of private landowners are teaming up with F&G agencies to allow access to private property during hunting seasons. They get financially reimbursed for doing this, so it is an incentive for them to keep their properties in order so that there is elk/deer there. It is big in WY and CO.

  15. Cat,
    Well if its private property they can graze their cattle all the want on their own land. Thats how it is in UT. I know you want others to buy these ranches to conserve habitat, but the only groups with the pockets deep enough to do it are the F&G agencies and hunting groups like SPFW and FNAWS and RMEF. And those groups are all funded by hunters. The same hunters alot of activists want to eliminate. I have yet to hear of DOW, SINAPAU, SIERRA CLUB or any other “conservation” group purchase any amount of habitat. If you have any reference of those groups doing anything besides suing people I would love to see it. I can send you multiple examples of hunting groups, especially RMEF buying up valuable habitat. See if you can find one of your groups doing the same.

  16. Elkhunter,

    Of course I do not wish to see the development of all private land. But your statement that a large majority of government owned land being high elevation is misleading. While a large portion of it is in higher elevation, there is a large portion that is not. This is where most of the grazing allotments exist. This is land that would be excellent habitat for wildlife were it not for the destruction caused by cattle. The Forest Services manages the higher elevations and grazing is done here to it’s detriment as well.

    I agree that valley ranchlands are necessary for winter wildlife habitat. But the concentration of cattle on this land in winter leaves wildlife competing for forage. Of course losing this winter forage would be bad. I would propose that environmental groups and private non ranching individuals purchase as much of this land as possible preserving it for wildlife habitat. Of course this will not happen until ranchers finally throw in the towel and realize that ranching in the west is economically (as well as ecologically) unfeasable. The fewer and fewer subsidies that are available to them makes this realization inevitable.

  17. Marion I believe that ranching is bad for the west. I have no animosity towards ranchers themselves except those who will not admit what their does to the environment.

    If anyone misreprestnes the truth, they should be held accountable. This is why “enviros” as you call them have won numerous lawsuits over the years.

    You obviously don’t have a much better idea of what is actually happening. How do you explain all the destruction on allotments documented by groups like Western Watersheds Project. Are those wide angle photographs, doctored? of course not. The facts do speak for themselves. There is much wasteland caused by overgrazing. Envronmental groups are trying to save the rest of public lands from further destruction. So just keep the cows on private property. Then everyone will be happy.

  18. Cat,
    You are failing to understand a few things about the habitat issue. Loss of habiat effects more wildlife than ANY cattle every will. Take UT for example. The Interstate 15 follows the mountains all the from SLC to southern UT. And guess what, it cuts off all the wintering range. And guess what is built around the Interstate? Cities and homes. Which cuts into the limited wintering range. Which in fact, is the main reason our deer herds are struggling.
    You state that the state owns alot of land. Have you noticed that the large majority of that is high elevations? Your in CO look at the Maroon-Bells Snowmass Wilderness area. Its all owned by the government. But almost ALL the wintering range is owned privately. Why is that? Because thats where the ranchers homsteaded and thats the land the wanted 100-150 years ago. I was just there 2 weeks ago on a deer hunt, and almost ALL the good hunting/wintering range was private. So if you want ranchers to sell off their land for developments then you will see very vital wintering range being sold off. Just look around you in the low country, there is private everywhere. Thats where people live, people dont live at 10,000 feet all year round, but they do at 5000 feet. So thats where people created ranches 100 years ago. Which is the private property we see now. If you dont think that losing prime wintering range to development is bad, I would take cows over condominiums at anytime. All my old hunting grounds in Cedar City UT where I grew up are all gone, and guess whats there now? A development. So I think that cows are the least of your worries.

  19. I know it was not very nice of me to sucker you in with the degraded stream picture, but here is the whole photo.

    I just want you to see how easy it is to manipulate what folks see and hear. Environmental groups make tons of money by convincing folks that such and such is happening just this way.
    I provide you with an example of lying by enviro organizations, their mistake was going after someone with enough money to fight them, most ranchers do not have that kind of money. You blow that off as easily as examples of what ranchers really do. I have lived in ranch country all of my life, including when I lived and worked on the Navajo Nation. I go down back roads all of the time plus to mountains that I share with grazing cattle and sheep, so I suspect I have a much better idea of what is really happening.
    What you fail to realize is facts speak for themselves. Most of the ranches are way over a hundred years old, and if they were treated like you say, they would be a wasteland.
    You must believe that ranchers are bad, otherwise what is being done to them in the name of environmentalism is a travesty.

  20. Marion, I have visited numerous ranches. I have also hiked hundreds of miles through grazing allotments I have seen the damage for myself. Even your pictures show the damage to streams and the overgrazing. Of course no one should lie about anothers practices. Look at how many lawsuit that environmental groups have won.

    There may be a few ranch families who try ot compensate for the destruction to the environment by their cattle by tossing wildlife a bone, so to speak. But the simple fact of the matter is that western ranching is a BAD idea. It is bad ecologically, and economically. The arid west simply cannot sustain number of cattle forced upon it. In the east it takes 1/2 and acre to support a cow. In the west it cant take anywhere between 10 and 50 acres. It is the land and it’s wildlife that suffer. The efforts made by the ranchers trying to preserve wildlife, is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb. It is not going to fix it. It is not out of hate that I or anyone else points these simple facts out. It is the truth. The cattle industry is destroying the western landscapes and along with it wildlife habitat. They may not set out intentionally to do it, but that IS what has happened.

    Maybe you should get out and explore a little more thorougly and see the damage for yourself.

  21. Cat, you really need to actually go to ranches and see what is being done, you read to much fund raising propaganda from envirnomental groups and simply do not know the truth. Too many of these groups outright lie and it cost one group in Arizona 600,000 last year for defamation of a ranch family!

    The photos I posted are the norm, not the exception. If there is anyway you can get the November issue of Wyoming Wildlfie please do so. There is an article on seven ranch families that have done a tremendous amount for wildlife preservation. It might open you ideas to actual facts instead of letting your hatred of other people get the best of you.
    As for your kitties, they are in no danger from me, but if you should move with one to the Preble mouse area, your environmental mouse protecting friends might have a different idea…..if it is allowed outside. The fact is house cats kill millions of song birds every year. That doesn’t count all of the mice you want saved.

  22. Rob, it we make 200 posts are you going to take us all out for vegie burgers?

  23. Marion,
    Ranchers destroy natuaral springs and streams to build their stock ponds and tanks further degrading riparian zones. Stripped of surrounding vegetation due to cattle trampling these ponds lack hiding cover, nesting habitat, foraging and other wildlife needs, they are almost useless to all but a few species of wildlife. They esixt at the expense of natural seeps, springs and streams, that would support far more native species if left intact.

    One of the reasons wolves were brought to the park were to control too many elk, So they are doing their job. Science Daily states that elk population in the Park have dropped 40% since reintroduction. This seems appropriate since there twice as many as considered healthy to start with.

    Montana ranchers are complaining about elk overpopulation and “demanding that the excessive number of elk be reduced”
    (Thanks, Jeff E. for that information)

    Are you going to kill our kitties now? As well as our wolves?

  24. Sorry Rob just had to do it. :*)

  25. Just a clarification, the water in the troughs most likely comes from wells with pumps, ranchers do not run water thru a trough in a creek.
    Ranchers are not worried about too many elk in Yellowstone, there aren’t that many left, over 2/3 had been killed by last year, and ranchers do not have livestock nor ranches in Yellowstone.
    Low elk numbers are one of the reasons that grizzlies are killing each other and that wolf packs are killing each other. They are hungry.
    By the way any of you that have kitties that go outside have a wildlife killer on your hands, as I’m sure you knwo.

  26. As the conversation moves on, did anyone notice that Wyoming state plotted a fantastic [really?] plan for the wolves management….
    No more money from me to Wyoming…Maybe we all should boycott Wyoming!!!!

    Please read this article….insane…

    Also, a good post on Ralph’ site.

  27. Also Kicking cattle off of public land does not automaticlly translate into ranchers going out of business. If they can’t make it on provate property, they can sell their land to whom ever they please at quite a proffit I’m sure.

    There can never be enough development in western states to seriously threaten wildlife habitat. The fact is that Bureau of Land Management owns most of the land in the west. In Colorado BLM owns 65% of the land. The percentage is higher in other states except Montana, to as much as 90% in Nevada. Forest Service owns even more. The real threat to wildlife and wildlife habitat is clearly the ranching industry.

    All wildlife including wolves would fare much better against the limited development that can occur as apposed to randhers who will be able to shoot at will.

  28. Elkhunter,
    The reason you see wildlife hanging cattle watering holes is because the cattle have ruined the riparian areas and natural springs that once watered them. If you need proof just go to Western Watersheds Project Website and take a look at the damage on the allotments. Or read Welfare Ranching or Predatory Beaurocracy. Or better yet go to any states wildlife website and notice the anumals that once depended on these riparian areas for habitat that are now extinct or on brink of extinction. You’ll find 23 types of mollusk (which feed a plethora of other wildlife species) on that list.. Rainbow trout can not survive in the streams that have been widened and made shallow by trampling of cattle. Cattle by nature because they were developed in himid areas of Europe. hang out in the moist riparian areas and this is what distroys them. Dear and elk who are native to the arid west do not.

    Numerous species of birds that depend on these riparian areas are left without habitat. Mamals as well.

    It is easy to say that you see no damage when you consider only 1 or 2 species that may be affected. But the truth is that many, many species are effected just by the destruction of riparian areas alone.

    Then there the types of native deep rooted grasses which depend on nutreints being provided by through their stems. These have been replaced by shallow rooted varieties because the cattle have razed the ground of them. The shallow rooted nonnative varieties provide little protection against erroxion.

    The list goes on and on. Look deeper than what is first evidenced by your innitial interests.


    Yet again, wolves are not killing off the deer and moose. There has been much talk lately of ranchers complaining that there are too many elk in Yellowstone.

    If you think the reintroduction of wolves was for entertainment purposes, then you are absolutrely beyond hope and beyond education.

  29. Marion says,

    “The financial impact of lost livestock and pets is born by individual families and is grossly underestimated in my opinion. I don’t believe that anyone should have the right to do that to their fellow Americans just because they do not like their profession.”
    Stop stop Marion—Oh the pets the pets— you can see the tear in my eye…….

  30. Elk hunter,
    Your point of all the wildlife congregating around the livestock trough needs to be thought through. If the trough wasnt there then the stream, rivulet, ground water, beaver pond, or other natural water feature would then be in place and not only the wildlife but all the plant life downstream would have the use of the water instead of it being stomped into an open livestock sewer.

  31. I believe cougars have a certain number of licenses. The bear hunt is stopped when a certain nu8mber of females are taken (I think, I don’t hunt, so I’m not entirely sure). Wolves are the larger and very fertile cousins of the coyote which is hunted as a predator.
    I left ranching when I went into nursing many years ago, my Dad died while I was in my first year of college and my Mom had to see our ranch. It takes a lot of money to go into ranching if one isn’t in family, and we couldn’t get back in.
    I am very very concerned at the ease that private property can be taken over for the entertainment of others. Like to admit it or not the wolves main value is their entertainment value. When folks talk about the value of them, they point to tourist dollars (which I believe are greatly exaggerated) and to growing trees caused by decreased elk and moose.
    In return is that dramatic loss of elk and moose in Yellowstone with the highest concentration on a relatively small area.
    The financial impact of lost livestock and pets is born by individual families and is grossly underestimated in my opinion. I don’t believe that anyone should have the right to do that to their fellow Americans just because they do not like their profession.
    The small family rancher is the one most affected by the huge number of wolves, if they are forced out of business, they will have two choices, sell to a big conglomerate or to a developer. The latter in particular will dramatically decrease the habitat for wildlife. Living with the 300 or so wolves that were touted just a few years ago in the beginning is a far cry from the huge numbers we have now. The last count was 1567, granted there have been some deaths due to fighting between packs. On the other hand some new animals have shown up in Yellowstone, and I don’t think it is a stretch to figure there may be another 20% that truly behave like wolves were thought to act and aren’t seen and tracked. That is an awful lot of wolves in an area that had only occasional wolves 12 years ago.
    Private property is a hallmark of our freedoms and I really hate seeing those rights disappear.
    Thank you for the kind words Kevin, I do lots of photography since getting old and retiring. I have always loved wildlife (except snakes) and do my part to preserve all of it, but I am also a realist, and gearing everything toward just predators is a recipe for disaster.

  32. Brother Elkhunter,

    To be clear, my point is that we, as a species, as a society, and as individuals, need to get a grip. The day that we collectively realize that humans “needs” can’t come first is the day that we will start to get it right.

    Sure, we need to manage certain situations that are the result of human incursion. We do, however, need to take a few steps back and see that the unabated appetites of humanity will ultimately be the doom of humanity. We have a choice.

  33. I’m an optimist at heart and a realist by nature.

    You said concisely what I was just thinking. I’m opposed to clear cutting of forests and unrestricted drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness. But I know that our (my) needsand the luxuries I’ve come accustemed to in life require cutting of timber and exploration and drilling for gas and oil. The same conclusions relate to “Nature” in general, there has to be give and take.

    I can’t speak for a lot of the bloggers on here as I’ve only been reading here a few days. But I think the ones that I have spoken to and the ones whose entries I’ve read would agree to some sort of management plan. I think not to support some king of management is detrimental to both sides. The pros since the reintroduction is obvious to those willing to see them. The cons are there as well and I think everyone even pro wolfers see those as well. I agree that it’s the extremists on both sides that is making this such a difficult issue.

    I’m not completely familiar with the Bear/Cougar management plan. But I believe it is similar to even deer and elk. A limited number of tags are issued depending on the projected numbers of each animal in a given area. I agree this would make way more sense for a management plan on the wolf than what WY has agreed on.

    In that way, the wolf would still have an opportunity/chance to spread to more range then it currently inhabits.

  34. Rob Edward,
    Thats a very valid point. Let me ask you a question, walk outside and look around, and ask yourself if it looked like this 1000 years ago? Of course nature can handle herself. But we have secluded habitats, blocked migration routes, eliminated predators and key habitats. Now if you add all that up, and of course human needs come first, hence farms for corn/wheat etc. That takes up valuable habitat that used to be used for animals. Rob be serious. I am not for needless slaughter. But you cant compare now to 1000 years ago.

  35. Elkhunter, the only other animal that is in need of some serious management is the human animal. Lawks a mussy! What on Earth did all of God’s creatures do before humans came along to “manage” them so?!

  36. Kevin,
    The difference with you and other bloggers on this site is that you agree that their should be some management. That is my only gripe with alot of people on here, we manage EVERY OTHER animal, but the wolf is allowed to do as he please? It does not make sense to me. I dont agree with WY management plan, I think they should manage wolves like they manage cougars/bears. It works well here.

  37. Marion
    After looking at your pictures, it appears that you have some appreciation for wildlife. However cattle are not wildlife and they shouldn’t be on public lands regardless.

    I understand that you have issues with the “single species management”. I like to make correlations in life. WYs plan is to give “predatory” status to the wolf outside of a single protected area, where they will be considered “trophy game”. In that “predatory” zone they will have no protection what so ever. You can kill as many as you see or can find. What if this was the case with non predatory animals? I know you will argue that the Ranchers have a right to defend their way of life. But what about Farmers that have deer and elk eat their crops? Shouldn’t they have the same right to defend their way of life and protect their families? Aren’t the deer and elk taking food off of their families table? This may be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h of the whole issue, but it seems you like to do that with the truth anyway.

    I see WYs plan as a sheer atrocity. I won’t say that I don’t think there needs to be a management plan. But I see what WY has approved as their plan as nothing short of a really bad joke. There is very little management in it at all. Of course that is just my humble opinion.

    I agree with you. But I don’t know how that will ever be stopped. It is harder and harder for smaller ranches to compete. It is easier for them to sell their ranches than to continue running them, either to larger run cattle operations or to developers. And I’ve seen the results of both and most of the time one isn’t any better than the other. The irony there is that developers move in and build homes because the consumer wants to be ‘closer’ to nature. Then communities and townships begin and in the end the nature they wanted to be closer to disappears because they moved there in the first place.

    For the record, I am not opposed to hunting as I grew up hunting in CO. I just choose to no longer do it myself. I still have family that hunts and I’ve been out with them when they go. I just carry my camera and not a gun and I always “shoot” more than they do. What I can’t understand and won’t support or accept is the senseless slaughter of animals for no reason, especially a “single species.”

  38. I dont know if cattle are all to blame, I have hunted for years and I remember 10-15 years ago, we would hunt on private property and there were cows EVERYWHERE we went. But there were also more deer, and most importantly to me, there were BIGGER BUCKS then. Not only deer, but elk also. I think there are some ranchers that misuse the land, I have seen them in certain areas. But in certain areas that I hunt there are cattle, and the local wildlife seem to benefit from some of the things associated with cattle. In the Southwest Desert Elk Unit in UT the elk focus mainly on cow troughs for water. Especially in the last couple of years during the drought. Same with antelope, coues deer, bighorn sheep and elk. All those animals are usually found very near to cow watering holes.
    Not that I am agreeing with Marion, I feel she is an extreme rancher with her opinions, and I get frustrated when I run into cows all over the mountain. But I think that loss of habitat is alot more of a concern than cows ever will be.
    Mike Wolf on Ralph’s blog has some very valid points about ranchers selling off to developers. I see it here in my local area, we are losing HUGE amounts of natural wintering range to developers. And I know Cat how you feel about cattle, but losing the habitat we are will effect wolves/deer/elk/sheep/and all other native wildlife alot more than any cows will. I say the issue is more with losing habitat than cows.

  39. Ok…I got answer for myself and other who would be interested . The starter of the conversation here was film by mr. Landis.
    You can buy one here:

  40. Hi,
    May I say something, please.
    Does anyone knows if the rerun of the Landis’s film is scheduled in the future?
    How about DVD?


    Now, lets go back to our discussion…:)
    Cows..or Wolves..I TAKE WOLVES!!!!

    [Editor’s Note: This question was answered in an earlier post by me in this thread (scroll up)].

  41. Does this one make you feel better about how awful cows are?

  42. Marion,

    I and others have posted numerous links to evidence of the damage done by cows. NO ONE (including govt. agencies) except you argues that point. For every picture you post showing no damage, thousands exists to the contrary. Either you have the attention span of a gnat or you enjoy trapping these threads into endless circular nonsensical arguments in order to keep the rest of us from enjoying beneficial and fruitful discussion. And you’re not even a rancher, which tends to make me believe you are on some sort of mission to derail pursposeful conversation, ordained by some right wing extremist group. And to that end I reiterate “Be gone, you have no power here!!!”

    No wonder you were kicked off Ralph’s blog.

  43. Do you by chance have a link to the “scientific evidence”? I am posting my proof that cows do not degrade the grazing areas. These were taken in late September at the END of the grazing season. You can judge for yourself how the grass is grazed to the ground. I hope it reassures you a little.

  44. I just found this blog and what an entertaining read even if it is way off the original topic now.

    Thank You Cathy, Jeff and Steve. You have provided some great links to a lot of valuable information.

    Thank You Marion for your uninformed, misguided, tunnel visioned view. It was entertaining to read your comments in some areas and just as entertaining is your lack of response to, what seemed to me, some specific and honest questions.

    I do not know near as much as most of the posters here on all the original guidelines to the reintroduction of the wolves. But something key I think you have missed, Marion is what several people tried to tell you right here on this blog and on some others that I’ve read. It was said that WY is the primary reason the delisting has not occurred. I believe from what I have read, that stems from WY not having a management plan after the delisting has occurred. IF that is indeed the case then you have no one to blame other than your own state government for the delisting not happening and maybe you should take up your issues with them. If this isn’t accurate, I apologize in advance.

    However the most useful post on here was Chris H’s question and the editor’s reply to the link for the Landis film. I was fortunate enough to meet Mr. Landis (Bob) this spring and spend some time speaking with him. I saw him again in August and he told me about the special and I still missed it.

    Thank You Chris and Editor

    Cathy, is there any way to get some personal information from you (an email address perhaps) or give you mine without leaving it here? No, I’m not a stalker. I am originally from CO and would like to talk to you about home and the possibilities of introduction there.

  45. Face it Marion, the scientific evidence is in. The cattle industry destroys wildlife and it’s habitat. The rest of us are trying to repair the damage that has been done by one industry.

  46. Marion ,
    How do conservationists, environmentalists, and wildlife advocates cause damage to the environment?

    How do folks that wish to eliminate wolves and other threats to livestock, which are the biggest cause of destruction to the environment, “protect, support, and benefit wildlife”?

    How do you protect wildlife by destroying it’s habitat? No one is advocating single species management except the cattle industry who promote their think that all of nature exists to serve them. The rest of us seek balance. (except for those militaristic radical right wingers who simply wish to defy the government)

  47. You miss the point, deliberately I imagine, the fact is the folks you are so intent on reviling are the folks that actually protect, support, and benefit wildlife.
    Single species management is probably the most destructive thing you can do to wildlife as a whole. It is useless to try to discuss it with you because it seems to be your stand that you are entitled to what ever you want irregardless of the damage you cause to the environment as a whole or to other people or to other animals.

  48. Jeff E.
    My guess is that the “us” Marion is referring to, is the ultra right wing anti-government militia type fringe who Percieve all conservationists, including wolf advocates as the government’s attemp to impose restrictions upon their eco-destructive lifestyles. They, like Marion, are not threatened in any way by the wolf but they see the wolf as a symbol of government interference. So they have placed the wolf in their crosshairs because it is an easy target (both figuratively and literally) in their very real allbeit misguided war against that interference.

  49. Marion,
    Who is this “us”. you keep referring too. Survey after survey and even in Wyoming’s own management plan it is shown that the MAJORITY of people that live in Wyoming support wolves. Just some more reality you seem unable to grasp.

  50. Marion, This isn’t about who can afford to do more for their particular causes. It is about being part of the problem or being part of the solution. We (those of us who care about nature) all do what we can when we can. Those that see nature only as a resource to be exploited (all livestock industry) steal what they can form the land and destroy it’s wildlife and don’t put anything back. That is the crux of the issue.

  51. Marion, I have 40 acres and we just completed wildfire mitigation which develops the land into excellent elk and deer habitat. In other words we had restore the land from the horrible condition it was in after cattle had been grazed on it. Plus I personally removed all barbed wire fences. We live at 8000 ft where cattle had no business being anyway. We have about 35 arces of natural grasses and healthy trees, open to wildlife. In addition to that I block hunters access to BLM across my property where they used to access it.

    My pets have all had their shots so I wouldn’t complain about wolves carrying diseases it we had wolves.

  52. What you do NOT do is provide anything for wildlife directly. Exactly what I thought. If you can’t afford it, you use your money for what you want.
    The rancher who has lambs and calves killed and consumed on the spot or packed away gets NO compensation or perhaps half if they can prove that the animal was killed and no other tracks are around even if the wolves did not leave enough tissue to identify the extreme trauma that is a hall mark of wolf kills. the family will put a new washer or frig on hold, or they will Wait to get braces for the kid because that dollar loss is real and out of their pocket.
    I only have a couple of acres, but I have alfalfa, and other grasses to provide food and cover for pheasants and chukars. I have cedar and berry producing vines to feed birds migrating or wintering. I maintain high grass along the ditch bank to provide cover nest sites etc for larks and plovers. I do not sue or get money from anyone else to do these things.
    You do realize that the wolves too carry disease? and they pass some of them on.

  53. What else we do is: We compensate ranchers for loss stock when they cry and whine after the wolves got to their unguarded livestock because they refused try and deter the wolves even though there are numerous methods available to them.

    What else we DON’T do is: We don’t expose wildlife to numerous diseases that are carried by domestic cattle and sheep that has come back around to reinfect the cattle themselves. Therefore we don’t slaughter the wildlife because they have the diseases that may infect domestic stock that the stock gave them in the first place. Also we don’t ineffectively reduce their populations by removing by hunting, the biggest and healthiest specimans and leaving the sick and diseased ones to reproduce thereby hindering the evolution of that species. We allow the wolves to do what nature designed them to do and that is to cull the weak ones leaving the best to reproduce allowing the evolution of that species to properly continue..

  54. I devoted thousands of hours to wildlife research (coyotes). Came across a lot of stubborn narrow-minded people like you in the process. The single most important thing that one can do for wildlife is to help people LEARN to live with wildlife. Right now I am in cancer research… i make mice sick… not fun. I am planning to apply to vet school next year. I hope to work with wildlife long into my future. Now, what have YOU done for wildlife (digging graves for cattle doesnt count, they are not wildlife).

    PS, I donate to defenders of wildlife whenever I can afford to do so.

  55. Marion,
    What do we do for wildlife? We don’t run them off their natural habitat and replace them with bovine vacuums that mow all the native forage down to nothing and replace it with noxious weeds. We don’t send 4 legged bull dozers into their riparian areas to trample and destroy what precious little habitat there is in the arid west for species that depend on them. We don’t allow our private livestock to suck up all the water and then polute with their feces, streams and springs located on public lands that are supposed to exists for the sake of public wildlife. We don’t criss cross the land (private and public) with deadly barbed wire that causes the deaths of a variety of species from owls to elk calves and everything in between. We don’t slaughter predators that exist naturally and insure the health of the herds of wildlife and their habitat simply because they may be a threat to the plague of paracitic cattle and sheep that were forced upon a land too delicate to sustain them.

    What we DO is donate what we can to try to acquire enough habitat for wildlife and to fight the legal battles with those who would destroy wildlife. We volunteer hours on end in efforts to educate the public on the necessity to protect wildlife and the ecosystems, not just for the sake of wildlife but for mankind’s as well. We make sacrifices to our own lifestyles so as not to add to the endangerment of spiecies, i.e. We don’t eat beef because the cattle industry is the single most destructive industry both in terms of threat to wildlife and it’s habitat as well as environment, or we only by dolphin safe tuna. We sign and circulate any number of petitions to ensure the interest of wildlife and nature served. The list goes on and on.

    Does that answer your question?

  56. First of all, many of the “nesters” (farmers to you city folk) had only a milk cow that raised her calf to provide meat during the year. Losing one or both was a disaster to them.
    I suggest you try reading some early history of settlers, of course you’ll probably think that is alie too, designed to anoy you.
    I do not believe Wyoming, nor any other state has impeded the wolf program in any way. May I remind you that 10 of 11 wolf exeprts, including Dr. David Mech , stated the Wyoming plan was perfectly adequate to protect the wolves. We have dealt with the hand we were given honestly and forthrightly, the same cannot be said of environmental groups. Every benchmark that we meet means that it is moved further along because “the states cannot be trusted”. that is easy to understand considering the lack of honestly of the wolf proponents.
    You are right, it does say “consider”, shame on us for not catching that and understanding the kind of people we were dealing with.
    Now how about the question I asked you guys, what do you yourselves do for wildlife? I don’t mean the money donated to groups for lawyers and fancy offices, I mean what have you actually done for wildlife?
    The other thing is how many wolves are enough?

  57. Marion,
    As soon as you fade back into reality cite one instance ever where wolves or other predators in and of themselves threatened anyone anywhere with starvation.
    While your having that moment of clarity I would like to remind you that you have yet to confirm that Wyoming has been the biggest overall roadblock to any movement to the status of wolves. you also have not responded to the “consider” question. Do you believe you might keep a grasp long enough to amuse me with your response?

  58. Rob, you lost me when you talk about 5% of their former range, and starving. I have said nothing even remotely close.
    People killed wolves from the time the first settlers hit the continent and probably before that in order to survive….pure and simple. If their food source was going to be endangered, they were going to do everything withing their power to save it….to do otherwise meant going hungry. There were no food stamp programs, stores were maybe a day or two ride each way. If they didn’t raise it or kill it, they did not eat. Folks who are fat sassy, and full can afford to be very judgemental and declare how awful those people were to destroy the wonderful wolves jsut because they were selfish enough to want to survive.
    As for the American Indian comment, that is pretty funny since you have no idea of my ancestry do you?
    Even funnier, I have a book containing the correspondence of the army about the “Big Walk” that the Navajos were forced to take. He took exception to my description that it was a very difficult book to read in that it described what they did to the Dineh and I also stated that it was even harder to accept and deal with. It was his opinion that it was the fault of the People.
    I guess if locals have to let the wolves eat their animals they feed them, granted the wolves take care of their own breeding ….in spades.

  59. Marion, How do you figure that anyone is forcing you to “feed and breed” any spieces? There is a huge difference in not allowing someone to slaughter an endangered and protected species and “feeding and breeding” it. Comments like yours are why your kind cannot be taken seriously by anyone objectively observing how this issue will play out.

  60. Marion, please don’t be so dim. Do you honestly believe that wolves are now present in less than five percent of their former range because they ate themselves into oblivion? I suppose that you think the native cultures of this continent faded into history because they didn’t dress well. Geesh!

  61. Steve, that is true, she just doesn’t realize that the only one she has to fear as far as losing her land and business to, are other bigger cattlemen. The cattle industry is a dying industry in the west. The only reason the huge cattle barons make it is because they have huge other interest. The Packards for instance of Hewlett-Packard anong others They do not rely on beef for and income, just to make their investment, (the land) pay for itself. They are just waiting for smaller opperations to go belly up so they can snatch up the land which is the real investment. They have people like her playing thier game to their benefit. Her, and others like her, participation on blogs like this is proof of that. She has her angst aimed in the wrong direction.

  62. Well let’s each post the number of wildlife in our state, and compare them. Any of you who live in other places can post what you yourself do to help wildlife.
    I admit to having a very practical outlook on things, and it simply does not make sense to me to continue to feed and breed predators to see how fast we can kill off all of the elk etc then list that species and start trying to force folks to feed and breed them. Plus of course spend millions of taxpayer dollars in the process. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have reasonable numbers of both?

  63. Cat, I am sure Marion would like to see elk saved by the ESA if it ever came down to that. I don’t think anyone would like to allow a species to go extinct. The problem is she has no integrity and she will say any extreme thought that pops into her head to support her views whether she believes them or not.

  64. I don’t even know how to respond to an individual who would rather see an entire species go extinct than be faced with the PERCIEVED threat that so called “enviros” would be able to dictate how folks used their own homes. I am assuming that you presently see federal protection of an endangered spices (in this the wolf) as an attempt by “enviros” to “dictate ” how you will use your home? In truth is that wolves are here to stay, they are protected (more or less) so deal with it. Wolves and all wildlife are a force of nature. Like fire, you cannot demand that there will be no fire allowed in your state. You simply have to take precautions so that your property and belongings are not destroyed by it. The same with wolves. There are plenty of deterence methods available, most free to ranchers and provided by donations from those “enviros”.

    Marion, when are you going to realize that it is not the “enviros” putting ranchers out of business that you have to worry about. It is other ranchers. In Montana alone in 2006, some 2000 smaller ranching operations were swallowed up by larger cattle producers. This has been the trend for some time in all western states. These outfits have other business interest and do not depend sole on ranching for their income so the ups and downs in the market do not effect them as much. While smaller ranching operations also depend on outside income, the ups and downs in the cattle market very definitely effect them. They are often forced out of business when they have to be responsible for costs that once were subsidised by the government. Policy made by who??? Oh yeah, the wealthy cattle baron’s influence in government representation. Which makes it nice for those wealthy cattle barons to pick up little ranchers land which was the target all along. So if anyone is forcing ranchers out of business, or dictating what will happen to their homes, you need look no further than the CATTLE INDUSTRY.

  65. I sure would if it meant that enviros could dictate how folks used their own homes orever and ever and ever.

  66. So if it came down to it you would prefer that elk go extinct rather than be saved by the government…

  67. Marion,
    this is the direct quote from the federal register that I linked above, which references page 22 sub section 23 of the approved rocky mountain recovery plan. See if you can have your neighbor’s third grader read it to you and be sure to have the part that includes the criteria to CONSIDER selecting to you twice on three consecutive days. We’re going to shoot for retention here.

    “The Rocky Mountain
    Plan states that if 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3
    successive years, gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to
    threatened status. It also states that if all 3 recovery areas maintain
    10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, the NRM wolf population can
    be considered fully recovered and can be considered for delisting.”
    We can also find in this document references to the fact that Wyoming was/is the single biggest obstacle to reclassifying the wolf.

  68. Well gee Steve, did you even read what I wrote? I can think of nothing I would support listing. To me to say list jsut for the fun of it is not smart. I would have to know a specific situation. For instance I value griz very highly and love watching them, but do I think they need continued protection to the point the become a danger to those folks who share a territory with them…no.
    I wrote an article for about the ESA that expresses a lot of my concerns about it.

  69. Edit…last comment, 5th line should be “scientific data” sorry.

  70. I understand, Marion. You cannot admit that you would want to use the ESA to save a species that you value because that would unravel 90% of your arguments against the evil enviros trying to protect wolves. Keep ignoring me. Your silence speaks volumes.

  71. It’s a double edged sword Marion. You can’t impose the status of “”Experimental ‘ Nonessential”” without accepting the consequences that the adjective “Experimental” implies. I understand that nonessential refers to the fact that the species is or was not at the time considered an vital componant in the ecosystem. However, the experiment proved otherwise. You cannot turn your back on the scientific compiled as a result of that “Experiment”. And don’t forget that it was the opposition to wolf reintroduction that imposed that label into the project. Thanks for the 10j link, I was looking for that.

  72. Actually experimental non-essential is defined as an adjunct in the ESA as being a species introduced outside of their normal range, and not essential to the survival of the species. It also specifies that FWS is not responsible to damages to the existing native species. I believe it also mentions they are not responsible for eradicating the native species of the range where they are introduced.
    Please remember there were at least 2 wolves documented in Yellowstone at the time the Canadian wolves were trucked in. In fact a judge put a hold on the whole thing, but Ed Bangs convinced him that 2 were not enough, and that the captured wolves would die if not moved immediately. (I think one did if I’m not mistaken). Were those the only wolves in Yellowsotne despite many sightings, were they perhaps a remnant of the Canis Irremotus, native to Yellowstone and thought extinct? We will never know, and unlike the black tail ferret will never be able to pull it back from the brink.
    I cannot think of a species I would support listing right now, it would depend on so many things. Does the population still exist somewhere, and how many? Wolves exist in huge numbers on this continent you know….and in close proximity to us.
    What is the value to mankind of the animal? For instance would I want to save mosquitos from extinction so we could continue to suffer from the diseases they carry? NO.
    The ESA is more about contol of other people by a few, and making big money for environmental lawyers and CEOs.

  73. I saw a great national geographic special done by Landis last night on bison. I think it was called “thunderbeasts” or something.

    I am still wondering if you would support federal reintroduction programs if they would save a species that you value, such as elk.

  74. By definition, the term “Experimental nonessential” suggests that the experiment will go forward and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the scientific data gathered by that experiment.

    It does not suggest that the experiment will go forward and ruinous activity will occur or continue regardles of scientific evidence denouncing such activity.

  75. Elkhunter, that’s what my husband said. I’m not sure if he was referring to my constant comments or the actual narrator.

    Marion, once again, the suggestion that delisting and hunting not occur until other states have had a chance to recover wolf populations with the genetically pure stock from Mt, Id, and Wy was MY thoughts on the matter, not an official stand taken by any environmentalists grout. Of course it does not appear in the language of the ESA.

    I do hope it is to be considered when making the decision whether or not to delist or hunt. I will contribute my time and effort in that persuit, but it is NOT currnently, to my knowledge a blockade to the planned delisting. But remember Wyoming insisted on the status of “Experimental Nonessential” for the project and the scientific “experiment “has resulted in the knowledge that the wolf has benefited the ecosystem to which it was reintroduced and would benefit other ecosystems as well. So by your own determination, delisting and hunting should not occur until this scientific experimental data is brought to fruition to benefit other areas.

  76. I watched the special last night, its pretty amazing. Some absolutely amazing footage. I was pretty amazed that the Slough’s just let the Unknowns take over their den site. I thought they would fight to the death for the site. I thought it was pretty cool, the only thing I did not like was the female narrator. She kinda got on my nerves.

  77. Jeffe and steve, not sure which is which, but read the first paragrpah of teh executive summary (I can’t figure out how to cut and paste it). It clearly states that the goal is to remove the wolves from the endangered and threatened species list by achieving and maintaining a minimum of 10 breeding pairs in each of the three areas for 3 years.
    That seems pretty clear to me. It also clearly says wolves will not be promoted in Zone 111 due to the high potential for conflict.
    No where do I see anything stating that wolves have to be present eveywhere they once lived in the United States before the three states can get out from under the burden of breeding and feeding them.
    I refered to the wolves in eastern Montana because they used the breeding of different groups as justification to keep DOW from having to pay for thsoe losses….even though they were forbidden to shoot it unless it was in the act of killing.

  78. Marion,
    To echo Steve; what about those links I found for you??

  79. Marion, are you afraid of my questions? Is it because I proved you wrong about the motel in cooke city?

  80. Marion, I did read that article,… interesting. However make the statement that “clearly all the wolves in the reintroduction were pure wolf”

    It doesn’t surprise me that there was some mixture where they were in close proximity to red wolves and coyotes. I have often thought that some of the coyotes in my area Must be part wolf. We have normal ones as well but we have some enormous coyotes. I have reported them to CDOW but they insist that they are coyotes.

    Are you saying that the wolves killed over 100 head of livestock in eastern Montana BECAUSE they were a mixture? What would that have to do with it. I’m just curious.

  81. As we discussed earlier, Family business can seek new sources of income. There is unequalled opportunity for them to profit from the business of saving the earth and it’s wildlife. They’d probably make more money than they do now. They’d probably end up thanking the “enviro’s” for showing them a better way.

    And if they are not willing to change then they need to dissapear to safegard the rest of the world from their destructive practices.

  82. Okay, you were talking about the number of ranches, not the number of cattle. So you are saying that many family businesses are expendable to please you, is that correct?

  83. I do not know where you got 12,600 head of cattle for Montana, but you’d better look again.
    By the way read Ralph’s article today about the Great Lakes wolves, then think of the wolf in eastern Montana that killed over a hundred head of livestock at the ranchers expense because it was a mixture.
    Then read pages 3-5 of this article about the introduced Mexican wolves.

  84. Marion,
    And the count was 12,600 head of cattle not 1.4 million, That wouldn’t even 3 million people a beanie wienie. Don’t you ever get tired of looking like a total bafoon?

    The one good thing you do for this blog is proove to anyone who may be undicided that the sterotype of the ignorant rancher is right on.

  85. Marion,
    Again what font of knowledge did you get this little pearl of wisdom from? The Anti Wolf Coalition Website? Here is the official USDA reports for 2005 and 2006. Montan is 26th on the list of cattle producing states. not very good considering some states don’t even produce cattle. Wyoming and Idaho were so far down on the list that I didn’t even bother to count.

  86. Marion,
    How about the links I posted, I’m curious to see what kind of fabrication you try to explain that away with.

  87. Another thing, I don’t appreciate you insinuating that I support the starvation of 3 million families just because I don’t support the corruption and foolishness of cattle ranching. I can go without eating beef and live a happy life… can you?

  88. Lets pretend wolves, cows, bears and bison dont exist in the scenario i imagined for you. I know it is very difficult for you to have a conversation without going on a tirade against wolves. Hypothetically, if elk were facing extinction in the lower 48, would you support the federal government using any means necessary, financial or otherwise to restore the species? I think that you have an irrational bias against wolves and you are lying to yourself if you wouldnt not support an aggressive reintroduction plan for a species that you value.

    I have nothing against growing food and even cows for the nation. First of all, if we completely eliminated beef from our food supply we would be just fine. Plenty of other things to eat. That being said, we all like steak and I think that we will all survive with wolves taking a couple percent of the 3% of the nations cattle that are in the tri-state reintroduction area. (I cannot back those numbers up but you could probably use a much more generous estimate, lets say wolves take something crazy like 50% of cows from MT, WY and ID. That would still have little to no effect on the nation’s food supply.) Once you stop exagerrating and being a drama queen maybe we can have a meaningful debate…

  89. Steve, elk have been transplanted from Wyoming into lots of other states. I’m not sure jsut what you are getting at about supporting them. They are definitely in trouble in Yellowstone itself, and the question is where will the wolves go when they are gone? Are you going to send the planes to Canada to get you some more even if there is nothing for them to eat? Wolves primarily have one food….elk. That is an important griz food too, but they also eat fish, nuts, sedges etc.
    Wolves are probably the most destructive predators there are, partly because they exist in packs that can kill almost anything, and they breed and reproduce fast. As you say you want to see the animals that others own and care about killed. Nothing I can ever say can overcome that kind of hatred toward your fellow man.
    I jsut read an article tonight that Montana is the 7th largest cattle raising state with 1.4 million head of cattle. That would feed approximately 3 million families, not that their food is as important as getting what you want.

  90. Cat, why is it that there is no list of books detailing the beauty, spirituality and majesty of cows? Marion, I am still waiting for you to answer the question I asked twice. Would you support federal government efforts/ the endangered species act if it was to save a species that you care about such as elk? It is pretty sad that you attack the “enviros” because if disease/ climate change ever reduce elk to an endangered status it will be the “enviros” who are on the front lines fighting to save them.

  91. Marion,
    Because I realize that you are slipping in and out of reality and are having a tough time researching any meaningful information here are two(there are tons more) links that expressly state at what point delisting can be “considered”.

  92. Rob or anyone,

    Does any one have a concise contact list of government officials in the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming who can be contacted by people who wish to complain about their policies toward wolves and wildlife? Maybe dept. of tourism too.

    I have been contacted by some people in France who wish to express thier displeasure with these policies, and their unwillingness to spend tourist dollars there. I would like to help them get involved.

  93. In the first place Marion, All the catle raised in all thre states of Montan, Idaho and Wyoming, makes up about 1% of the total amount of beef produced in the entire country. The tiny state of South Corolina on the eastern seaboard produces more beef tha all three states combined. This does not justify the destruction of the land and eradication of the wildlife, including wolves that the cattle indutry in these states have caused. You have no power here Marion, be gone before someone drops a house on you.

  94. cat, it is interesting that on the one hand you are demanding that ranchers go out of the business of providing food for millions of people and raise wolves to entertain the city folk instead. Then you tell Kelly that they are shy of people and won’t be seen.
    Even though someone must raise wolves to suit you, you still subscribe to NIMBY.
    A book that might provide you some enlightenment is

  95. Kelly

    There are some excellent books available to help you understand the biological problems and the political fight over the wolf issue. Some of them are:

    “Decade of the Wolf” by Doug Smith
    “Shadow Mountain” by Renee Askins
    “Wolf Wars” by Hank Fischer
    “Of wolves and men” by Barry Lopez
    “Ninemile wolves” by Rick Bass
    “Predatory Beaurocracy” by Michael J. Robinson
    “Welfare Ranching” and “Comeback Wolves” are by a group of writers.

    These are just some of my favorites, I’m sure others on this site can contribute a lot more.


  96. Jeff E. This kind of flies in the face of some who claim that wolves are decimating elk populations. Huh.

    I would love to see wolves inhabit a larger part of their orriginal habitat as well. Unfortunately we have to fight the whining cattle industry in order to get them reintroduced to states that have been determined to have suitable habitat. I don’t think it is practical to think that they could be placed in parks and wildlife refuges that were not large enough to sustain them and the prey base required to feed them. Also huge areas are required because wolves, unlike coyotes, are by nature extremely shy of people so they need enough room to seek seclusion. Another problem would be that by nature when their populations grow they disperse to other areas which would be a problem in parks and smaller urban wildlife refuges. But the more wolves we get in other states the better chance everyone will have to see and learn more about them. They are so extremely important to a healthy ecosystem. Keep voicing your support for them.

  97. Cat,
    The reference to too many elk was actually made by ranchers and politicians in Montana. And not only just recently. Several months ago the same topic came up from the representative in Montana that has the town of Dillon in her precinct and was, to paraphrase, demanding that the excessive numbers of elk in southwest Montana be reduced.

  98. If wolves are not dangerous to humans why aren’t they being introduced into populated areas? Coyotes have been caught in downtown LA, Denver, and even New York. There are large areas of open space in parks, golf courses, and wildlife refuges that could hold a pair of wolves and the populated buffer zones would prevent the wolves from fighting each other. Why should only rural people be able to see and hear the wolves? Wolves should be able to be enjoyed by ALL Americans.

  99. You might ask Ralph about it. Who knows where he got it. The only thing I have ever heard is ranchers saying the feedgrounds are needed to keep the elk out of their pastures and off the feedlines. that jsutification has been used for many many years, not just since the wolves were trucked in.
    The elk and deer can be seen in meadows along back roads in early morning and evening. Your chances of getting to watch one of the big predators killing them is almost non existent. Unlike habituated wolves, bears, and other wildlife in Yellowstone, wildlife outside is truly wild and you aren’t going to see them, at least not in the predator prey situation you’d like. Grazing ungulates is about the size of it, no killing…sorry.

  100. Elkhunter,
    I have had to rewrite this response because the first one I made disappeared into cyberspace. So if both of them appear, I appologize.

    In this instance I am not making an argument against delisting. I am stating that ranchers have a unique opportunity to create an industry around thier wildlife and protect them at the same time. I am aware of the difficulty in cultivating this industry in Idaho due mostly, as you pointed out to the rough terrain. I don’t know if you are aware of it, but there is an effort currently being discussed on Ralph’s blog on how to promote this business in Idaho. I don’t think innaccessability is as much an issue in Wyoming.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “it would be highly illegal to capture a wolf and steel it.” I am assuming the wolves are already present. Marion complains that the place is lousy with them. I do dissagree with you in that I believe a wildlife refuge could be quite lucrative. At least as much as ranching. This seems to be a trend in other areas, Horse Butte in Montana for one. And those who choose to avail themselves to this opportunity would have the world behind them.

    Hunting is an option, at the owner’s discretion, but this is only seasonal. Otions would include a plethora of wildlife services from outfitting to dude ranching, camping and much more. I’m sure that government subsidies would be available considering the current trend toward “green” industries.

    Elkhunter, I recently read a comment on Ralph’s blog, I believe made by him, about Wyoming ranchers complaining that there are too many elk in and out of the park which conflicts with other reports I have read. I am trying to find more information. Do you know anything about this?

  101. Cat, someone who owns private property does not OWN the wolves or elk or deer or bison on their properties. So it would be highly illegal for someone to capture a wolf and seel it. As for the wolf watching, ID has more wolves than all other states combined, and their wolf watching revenue is very low. The areas the wolves live in is not like YNP where the animals sit and stare at you, and you can see wolves from the road. The wolves in ID inhabitat some very nasty terrain, and very hard to access. Not exactly what a family from CA and a sightseeing trip wants to hear. A 12 mile roundtrip hike to MAYBE see a wolf would not fly well for others.
    As for a refuge, I dont see raising wildlife and charging people to look at deer/elk/bison/wolves would be that lucrative. If it was hunting and in a trophy area then yes, you might be able to generate enough income. You cant compare some dude’s ranch in WY to the revenue generating capabilities of YNP.
    I also think people care a little bit more about WY than YNP and wolves. You should realize they generate alot of the oil and natural gas that our country uses to operate on a daily basis. Which I personnally care about.
    As for the ESA and wolves inhabiting their historic range, you cant base anything on that, the ENTIRE STATE OF UT could support 200 wolves, according to a study done at USU. Yet historically I would imagine it held alot more. The same with CA, historically I bet they had thousands of wolves, I dont see CA supporting thousands of wolves. Common sense should apply, and that argument should not be used to stop delisting.

  102. No, I’m not suggesting a pen. On a wild life refuge, I would expect them to eat wildlife. Do you not have any wildlife in Wyoming? No elk, deer or antelope in Wyoming? I merely suggested that buffalo replace the cows and sheep because I would assume elk and deer are already.there. Although I do hear that sheep make nice hors d’oeuvre for the wolves. You could donate some for the cause if you like.

    I’m sure the wolf friendly shops and hotels in Gardiner and Cooke City are doing just fine. They know how to take advantage of a good thing when they see it.

  103. I guess I don’t have much of any info right, I have been under the impression that Gardiner and especially Cooke City were very very wolf friendly. That of course is just based on recommendations for rooms etc that I see on these boards.
    I thought every wolf lover going to Yellowstone knew about these folks in Cooke.

    By the way what do you think the wolves would eat on those ranches if they raise only wolves and buffs? Only the Mollies are able to bring down many buffalo, and the fight with the Hayden Pack demonstrates they need elk too. Buffalo are not the main prey of wolves by any stretch of the imagination. Wolves cannot be “kept” anywhere unless they are in a pen, surely that is not what you are suggesting.

  104. How about if they spend their money in and around all the new wildlife preserves that used to be eco-unfriendly ranches. And if ranchers had any brains, they’d get rid of the cows and sheep and replace them with wolves and bison and we could pay them big money to come and see them and the government would pay them big money for live wolves to use in reintroduction programs all over the world. I’ll tell you this, I was in West Yellowstone just about a month ago, for 2 nights and I spent well over $1000. and all of it on wolf related activity and shopping. This is a fact because my husband just pointed it out to me on our visa bill. I plan another trip in April and this time I’m taking several friends. So maybe Gardiner and Cooke City should be a little more wolf friendly.
    Is your source of information on reintroduction costs per wolf the same font of knowledge from which you acquired the rest of your misinformation like “wolves are destroying all the wildlife, and cattle grazing is actually good for the land and your total misunterpretation of the ESA along with the “‘greeenids”‘ are out to get you?”

  105. If you would look at the link below, you would see that there is a very large, very new super 8 motel in cooke city. Opened in 2004. 33 rooms. They even have wifi!! I am sure that it has nothing to do with wolves though. Any thoughts on my elk question? Would you support government efforts to save a species you value? As much as I would LOVE to see some cows and sheep getting killed I am going to have to settle for soaking in the scenery, the wolves, and my personal favorite animal… the bison.

    I can only imagine what you love to see through your scope. Probably bison being hazed and tortured on people’s private property, bighorn sheep being killed to benefit sheep ranchers, wolves being killed, and any other perverted acts that benefit the livestock industry.

  106. In the first place where would wolf watchers spend their money in Wyoming watching wolves….Jackson? they need more money like Heinz needs more pickles. Create another job for another person that could sleep in their vehicle because there is no place they can afford to live?
    Are you hoping to set up your telescopes on a ranch so you can watch them kill cows or sheep? Maybe the owners dog if they are old and slow?
    I don’t know if West Yellowstone gets many wolf watchers, otherwise it is going to pretty much be Gardiner and Cooke City isn’t it? And I have asked before have either of those places built new motels or restaurants for the wolfers?
    Actually I had heard that the total cost by the end of the two years was more like a quarter of a million per wolf trucked in.

  107. Steve, I’m sure your’re right, More proof that too much beef causes dememtia.

  108. Cat, I can predict the future… Marion will counter with her “lost hunting revenue” and “no new businesses in silver gate and cooke city” arguments. Followed by her “the economic studies showing benefits from wolves were carried out by incompetents” argument. I have been down this sad road too many times.

  109. Face it Marion, the only thing that Wyoming has to offer that the rest of the world gives a damn about is Yelowstone and the wolves outside the park. Are you not bright enough to know that you are sitting on an “enviro” goldmine if you were smart enough to take advantage of it. The cattle industry is dying. They’ve shot themselves in the foot by destroying the land that feeds them and by showing the rest of the world that they care nothing about the rest of the world or any living thing on it. Can you immagine how much money could be made by taking all that land that is being destroyed by cattle and opening private wildlive preserves???? Do you not know that the government spent at least $10,000 per wolf to get them from Canada? You’re sitting on a goldmine that people would respect you for if you’d use your head and make it work for you instead destroying it as fast as you can. Look at the thousands people spend just to come to Yellowstone to see wolves. THINK


    How is only wyoming targeted? Because the “enviros” are not happy with their intentionally poor management plan? If you act like morons, expect to be treated like morons. Frankly, if wyoming fell off the map, I don’t think the country would really notice (I would miss yellowstone though).

    I have a question. If elk were suddenly almost extinct in the lower 48 due to global warming or something, would you support the federal government doing everything possible and using the endangered species act to restore the species?

    I will be in yellowstone thanksgiving week and my group is not spending one dime in wyoming. Because of you the wyoming economy has suffered a loss of a few hundred dollars. I am sure Montana thanks you!

  111. Steve, then why do the enviros target Wyoming if the world doesn’t revolve around us? Take your wolves and your mice and go home, and ignore us. We won’t mind at all, and you can make the paradise you want in your own yard.

  112. Craig, I AM SPARTACUS. I gave the Galineses the money to buy the land and I took the pictures and sent them in, just so we could start a revolt!!!!!

  113. Chris H, I can’t believe you actually dared to talk about the show! I hope Marion doesnt get offended at someone actually staying on topic… If you have ondemand you can access the show for free if it is on there (at least I can).

  114. I spotted a white wolf crossing the road near Lewis Lake, around dusk on October 16th, 2007. It was so beautiful. I was heading south from West Thumb.

    According to the Nature program – interactive guide – there are only 2 white wolves in Yellowstone. I felt incredibly lucky to ever see a wolf in the wild – and for it to be a white one, amazed.

    “In the Valley of the Wolves” was a great program, I’ll be watching it over and over again – like so many “Nature” programs.

  115. Are you saying as long as you keep them out of Denver, NYC, and San Fran, you can keep demanding that Wyoming have more?
    You must get a real charge out of helicopter gunning of the poor things.

  116. Marion, that dog won’t hunt! How many time must I repeat this: The recovery plan failed to address the actual legal requirements of the Endangered Species Act, which mandate (you do get the concept of a mandate, don’t you?) that the species be restored to, “all or a significant portion of its range.”

    Presently, wolves occupy less than five percent of their former range in the lower forty-eight states (the area where they are listed as endangered), and even within Idaho, Wyoming and Montana they occupy less than 15% of their former range. 15% is hardly significant from a recovery perspective, because, logically, that means that the species presently occupies less than 85% of its former range, which is more significant than 15%.

    Those are the numbers that must be dealt with in determining when de-listing can occur. The 300 wolves threshold had to do with the attainment of a minimum viable population, which is a purely biological concept, and has nothing to do with the requirements of the law.

  117. Back to the show. Does anyone know how obtain a copy? Regretfully I did not record it. I checked the Nature website but I did not see where one could purchase a DVD or video. Thanks for any advice.

    Editor’s Reply: Thanks for asking Chris. You can purchase a DVD of the Show for $19.99 by clicking here.

  118. Ok Jeffe, post a link to your copy that says consider.

  119. Marion,
    Once again you try to lie you way out. READ the plan for reintroduction. It says exactly that the 3 year 300 population would be a trigger to CONSIDER delisting. Curiously or maybe not considering your propensity for s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth on all subjects you do not even talk about the only thing that has really held up delisting and that is the state of Wyoming.

  120. Marion , as far as I know the suggestion to keep a higher population of wolves in Wyoming ih hopes of having a source from which to draw on, is strictly MY idea. Others may naturally be thinking in the same direction because it makes GOOD SENSE. It is not however, or at least I am unnaware of official STAND by any “enviro groups” as you put it. I wish it were and I will lend my efforts to making it so, but stop foaming at the mouth and spreading around blogs that “enviro groups” are out to get you or want to control people’s lives. Why would anyone want to control YOUR life. Stop being so paranoid. Have you seen a doctor about that? They have drugs to treat that now.

  121. No, Jeffe, that was supposed to start the countdown to delist, and the states have to keep at least theat many wolves, 3 years of 300 wolves was supposed to eman delisting period, and they stay that way unless they drop below the 300. The plan says nothing about raising them to repopulate other states. That is just a grasp by enviro groups to maintain control over people’s lives…or perhaps they were lying in their teeth when the original plan was devised and this was the idea all along.
    This is one of the changes that must be made to the ESA, it must not be openended. It must have a goal that when reached means automatic delisting, no lies, no changing the rules, no skating. The delsiting must be as firm as the listing.

  122. Marion whines,
    “The three states were to be delisted when the numbers reached 300 for the 3 states for 3 years running. We have far more than that in EACH state and it is not enough for you. We have more than kept our word….yours?”
    As always Marion you only tell part of the information on any issue.
    As you well know that the 300 was a minimum number for three years to start to CONSIDER delisting. In addition to that each state had to have AN APPROVED MANAGEMENT PLAN, which Wyoming never had and that is THE BIGGEST SINGLE REASON why delisting did not happen several years ago. Will you ever tell the whole truth about anything?

  123. The singling out of Wyoming is a matter of location. It has nothing to do with your big mouths.

  124. Marion, Evidence produced in the years since reintroduction occured in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming indicate that wolves have had an even more possitive effect on the environment than first expected. Since then, environmentalist have come to realize that their presence could benefit other ecosystems as well. This WAS done as a scientific experiment and NOT a tourist attraction, as you like to immagine. Also in the 13 years since reintroduction, it has become increasingly apparent that our ecosystems are in more trouble than once thought. This changes the situation.

    Lets say for instance, if a pharmiceutical company were under government contract to produce a certain vacine for a number of years and that contract expires and they could produce other pharmiceuticals at a higher profit. Then there is an outbreak of the disease the vacine was produced for. Should it not be required of the company to continue to produce the vacine to benefit the nation even though it might not be in that company’s best interest financially? Of course it should.

    No one is asking you to raise wolves. Just not slaughter them until they have been either reintroduced to or they migrate to areas that will benefit from their presence.

    Why do I single out Wyoming? Look at a map. Duh!!!

  125. Cat, you are right I misread this to mean that our population wasn’t growing enough:
    “If that population is reduced in other states to just enough to keep them from being relisted, there won’t be any available for transplant. I would like to see that population especially in Wyoming remain high until wolves either are reintroduced or have migrated to Colorado.”

    That being said, requiring Wyoming or any other state to raise wolves for repopulating other states was never mentioned in the EIS. The three states were to be delisted when the numbers reached 300 for the 3 states for 3 eyars running. We have far more than that in EACH state and it is not enough for you. We ahve mroe than kept our word….yours?
    Why do you single Wyoming out for providing the wolves to populate other states? Because we are so impertinent and dare to speak out?

  126. Elkhunter

    You may have misunderstood my comment about Mikarooni or perhaps I could have elaborated further. If I recall he had just written a long tale about how hunters had tresspassed on his property and left trash and elk guts an cut fences and were generally destructive even to his cabins I believe. I don’t recall all of it. But I applaud his efforts in discouraging this kind of behavior.

    I have business associates in Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Ducks Unlimited. One of my elk sculptures was once auctioned off at a RMEF fundraiser. We bounce ideas off each other on occasion. I don’t see too much wolf oppositon among them. Of course they might just be avoiding a lengthy wolf tyrade from me.

  127. Thats not how that comment comes across Cat. It seems you made that point that by Mikarooni not allowing hunters to hunt on his land was a victory over hunting. Thats how I percieved that comment. I never said anything about land owners having to let hunters on their property, they can do what they want, its their land. But I get the feeling that you were happy that hunting was prevented. Thats what I gathered, I could be wrong though.


    It seems you should be working with sportsmen, you are obviously aware of what hunters do for conservation and habitat. Through funds and also through service hours. Groups like FNAWS and RMEF and MDF and Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever. They may not be in love with wolves, but what they do for habitat and conservation will never be touched by the likes of DOW and Sierra Club. It seems all their money goes to litigation.

  128. Elkhunter, do you think hunters should be allowed to hunt on private land without that owners permission. This is why I don’t trust hunters.

  129. Elkhunter
    If you were referring to the fact that I agree with Mikarooni’s choice not to allow hunters of any sort on his private land, I certainly do. I own property here in CO and the hunters want to hunt on it and /or cross it to get to BLM and I will not allow it. I’m not stopping them from hunting. But they’d better not set foot on my land to do it. Should landowners have to tolerate wolf watchers invading their property to photograph wolves. Of course not. Although if I had wolves on my land I would allow that. It’s my choice. I hope I get that choice some day.

  130. The comment I made on Ralphs blog about my dissagreeing with lethal control was that it is entirely abused and until it is shown that it will not be so, I do not think it should be used as an option. This is not contrary to what I just stated that I would not be apposed to RESPONSIBLE control measures. From what I have gathered, current lethal control measures especially in Idaho and Montana have been grossly abused. Roger Lang and the Sun Ranch are prime examples of this. There are many, many others.

    I’m not sure I remember the comment I made to Mikarooni unless it was in reference to wolf hunting. And there again I am apposed to wolf hunting UNTIL we have a viable population in other areas especially Colorado. I don’t know where I said I would “give support to hunters” I simply said I wouldn’t appose hunting as a method of control IF overpopulation became a problem. I would rather see them hunted in a controlled situation than cattlemen given the authority to shoot at will. AND cattlemen don’t get to have any say in what that overpopulation is. As far as I am concerned their livestock are parasites on the land and I personally wouldn’t care if wolves killed every last one of them. I also said that hunters should have a bigger problem with the cattle industry than they do activists. I don’t know if that constitutes support. I am never going to love hunting. Tolerate it under controled circumstances, yes. Prefer it over cattlemen’s choice of control, yes. Love it, never. I’ll bet you this, get rid of the cattle and you’ll get rid of the activists.

  131. Cat here is your quote, this is why I dont really trust any activists.

    catbestland Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 11:14 am
    Yea Mikarooni!!!! buy some more ranches and keep more hunters out.

  132. The wolves themselves might not be a threat, but activists are. Alot of activists think that there are not near enough wolves in ID or the surrounding areas. And wolf populations will control themselves in a non-human environment, but that cycle takes decades not just a few years. We control what they eat, so we should control them also. Now you may be okay with that, but the large majority as a whole do not want ANY wolves killed. I believe I read a comment on Ralphs site from you stating something of that nature. Also your comment to Mikarooni about buying up land and not letting hunters in at all kind of makes me not really believe the support you are saying you would give hunters.

    I agree with you about the cattle issue, I think there should be more regulation.

  133. Marion you obviously misread my comment. I said “IF” the wolf population is decreased dramatically in reference to their being a viable population to encourage dispersion. Maybe this is why you are always spewing misinformation and come across as an antagonist.

  134. Elkhunter, I’m not thinking in terms of elk population but in terms of diseases. And wolves contribute SO much more to ecosystems than that. Too long a list to go into here but I’m sure you’re aware of the evidence supporting this fact. In a world without man’s interference, wolves do have an auto-adjust population control. They adjust their numbers to the amount of prey available. Otherwise there would have been no herds of elk, deer, bison, moose etc. present when European settlers invaded the west. The problem of overpopulation occurs ONLY where cattle are present. In the view of most environmentalists, cattle are an invasive destructive species on the delicate arid ecosystems of the Rocky Mountain west.
    Therefore I cannot consider wolf overpopulation, which is not a threat to any other species except cattle, as a problem.

    That being said, I do realize that cattle are not going away entirely in the west, (although the industry is steadily dwindling in the Region of the San Juan Mountains of Southern Colorado, which is one of the reasons this is a perfect place for wolf reintroduction) therefore I would not be apposed to there being some measure of control afforded to the cattle industry.

    However, I am comvinced that the cattle industry alone is the entire problem. It takes many more times the area to feed a cow in the west than it does in more suitable regions of the country. They suck up far more water than this arid region can afford, and then they destroy the streams and watersheds, further ruining what is left.

    The hunting sector should redirect some of its angst against wolves and wolf activists toward the cattle industry. They are the very reason that activists have to get involved. If cattle were removed (from public lands innitially) they wouldn’t be threatened by wolves, the animals you hunt would have more access to fodder and you’d enjoy a greater expance in which to hunt. I think hunters would be more reasonable to deal with than the cattle industry.

    Activists will be happy when there is a viable wolf population in all areas where it is feasable. When that occurs, no one has a problem with controling overwhelming populations. Here again I believe it is the cattle industries veiw that the population is overwhelming. But we would be willing to concede reasonable control measures in order to get them reintroduced.. The problem is not that we feel there aren’t enough wolves in Id, Mt. and Wy. but that there aren’t any in areas that need them.

    I’m not real sure why hunters would have a problem with wolf populations. You said yourself that they have no real effect on elk populations. They are no threat to your interests.

  135. Cat,
    Where did you get the idea that wolves have decreased dramatically in Wyoming? Becasue our 2007 increase is “only” 15% instead of the 20% in other places?
    I realize tht FWS has had to kill lots of wolves, but remember that is after they have killed livestock. Do you have a solution to the increasing wolves and increasing losses….other than ranchers bite the bullet?

  136. Cat, those are good points, but my main hold back is that activists would not want wolf management at all. I read constantly how activists state that wolves control their own populations and dont need control from us. I dont believe that one bit.
    As for control issues, you can see why ID sportsmen would be a little upset, in the beginning they were under the impression that after 300 wolves delisting would occur. Now, 13 years later, and over 1400 wolves delisting is still beging fought fiercely. If activists are not happy now, when will they be? How many wolves are enough wolves to keep activists happy? If they would allow game agencies to manage wolf populations just like cougar and bear populations, then I would support wolves in UT. But if we dont have 100% control over them, I dont want them here. Because I just dont trust activists.
    And I dont think wolves will solve CO elk problems, Ralph and other pro-wolf maintain that wolves DONT have significant effects on elk populations. Ralph has stated that many times. So if a reduction of elk is the goal to make herds healthier then I dont think wolves are the key. You either need to harvest more elk during the hunts, or hope fdor a really bad winter.

  137. Elkhunter,

    We are in the process of petitioning the state of CO for reintroduction. The problem is that in the mean time there needs to be a viable population of wolves that would allow some of them to be transplanted. If that population is reduced in other states to just enough to keep them from being relisted, there won’t be any availabe for transplant. I would like to see that population especially in Wyoming remain high until wolves either are reintroduced or have migrated to Colorado. Migration will only take decades if the population in adjoin states is severely reduced. I agree reintroduction is a better plan. We’r working on that. But even that is going to require a healthy population in other states from which wolves may be acquired.

    I’m not as concerned about control issues in Idaho and Montana although I don’t think it is wise to reduce the populations as much as is called for. There may be a need to acquire wolves from these states in the future as well. You have to realize that these 3 states an important source for wolves that may be needed in the future to establish packs in other areas of the country as well.

    I don’t think that is completely true about activists. As I said, we may not like hunting but most are willing to compromise in order to accomplish their objective, especially where wolves are concerned. Most wolf advocates are also eco/enviro-activists as well not animal rights activists. Wolf and environmental activists desire to restore healthy ecosystems which will benefit all. And until there is a balance there we, for the most part feel it is unwise to decimate one of the nations healthiest wolf population sources by hunting. When healthy populations are establish in as many areas as feasable, I, and most other (I don’t mean to speak for anyone else here) wolf/environtmentalist should have no problem with responsible control measures. We wish to see healthy populations, not unbalanced ones. However I do not figure the cattle industry view into this equasion as the presence of cattle is wholy unnatural and invasive to the western ecosystems.

    It’s like: Do we in Colorado have the right to damn up the Colorado River or polute it to satisfy industrial needs? No. This would have serious repercussions on folks downstream in neighboring states who depend on that water.

  138. Cat, for something like that to happen would take decades. I personally dont feel that its fair that wolves should be able to populate, all the while we are managing every other animal, while we wait for wolves to migrate to surrounding states or areas. If I lived in WY or ID I dont think I would be to happy with that sort of a game plan. If you want them that bad, then petition CO to transplant some like ID did. I personally know in UT that I dont see how 200 wolves would do much besides appease wolf-lovers in UT.
    The main issue Cat is that most activist dont want hunting at all, especially of wolves.

  139. Elkhunter,

    The reason I don’t wand to see the wolf delisted or a wolf hunt season established until wolves occupy as much of their former range as possible.( and if ciourse I realize that most of that range is no longer suitable, but some of it is.) is because according to the Colorado Guidelines, there is no provision for reintroduction. There is only protection IF they migrate here on their own. Before delisting and a wolf hunt became probabilities, that migration seemed possible. As the rise in wolf populations in a particular area would encourage dispersion to another area. And Colorado would have been the first place they would migrate to, as has been the case on rare occasions.

    With the population so drastically reduced in Wyoming especially, this natural migration is not likely to occur. There simply are no animals to disperse. And the few that do will not make it to Southern Colorado, which is some of the best wolf habitat in the lower 48. I besieve there will be less conflict here as well. The cattle industry is on the decline and hunting is not as popular in some of the more remote areas simply because of the difficulty of access.

    The tape I’m referring to is DEFINATELY left by hunters. I live in a very popular hunting area and I have watched them. It only occurs during hunting season and they have left rolls of it behind at their campsites, along with copious amounts of other trash. I spend a lot of time in the woods myself and I know what the forest service does. I notice it is mostly out of state hunters in our area. I wish they’d stop leaving the tape. It’s dangerous if ingested by animals and I’ve gotten in the habbit of following the hunters in and removing it before it does damage.


  140. Cat, the whole foot in the door is the issue. In the beginning we were led to believe that as soon as 300 in 3 states delisting would occur. That was 7 years ago when numbers reached those levels. And populations keep growing every year. Then the 10j rule came out, and activists freaked out, but populations are continuing to rise.
    And why would you be opposed to hunting wolves in ID until wolves are in CO? That I dont understand, wolves are not going anywhere in ID, there are over 800 I believe, yet no hunt in sight! You want wolves to repopulate their historic range, how much of thier historic range is even suitable for wolves? 20% at most? They did a study that UT could MAYBE support 200 wolves. That was done by Utah State University. You really think that 200 wolves are going to turn UT’s elk herds around? Our herds are as healthy as they have ever been, all either at objective or just below objective, the main issue we have is lack of habitat, not lack of predators, between cougars and bears and humans the elk have plenty of predators.
    The issue is not wolves, if we could manage wolves just like we manage every other predator I would be all for wolves, but that will never happen. Activitst will always want wolves to live above the law, look at the Great Lakes Region, they wanted to delist and immediately activists sue. And they have THOUSANDS of wolves. Cat we have 2 very different goals with wolves, you want as many as possible and to allow them to populate until they start killing each other because there is not enough room for them, like what is happening in YNP, and I want some, as long as we get to manage them like every other predator. But you and I know that will never happen. Thats why I would oppose wolves in UT, cause once you “have your foot in the door” we will have what ID has. A circus. Then we will start hearing about wanting to eliminate hunting in areas where grizz/wolves are present. Almost all activits are against hunting, and I really enjoy hunting. So they threaten what I my family has been doing for generations, just as you feel strongly about wolves, I feel the same way about hunting.

    As for the tape, alot of the tape is from the Forest Service, they mark tree’s to cut down or to remove for firewood. Thats at least in UT. I see them marking trees all the time. I use it to mark blood trails, but the large majority is from the Forest Service.

  141. Marion,
    Please tell us what word was not kept.

    the tape bothers me too. originally I believe it was to mark a kill because it can sometimes take two or more days to get an animal recovered. Then you have the Hansel and Gretel syndrome of marking your trail. Why a person wont learn some basic land navigation such as map reading and how to read a compass is beyond me.

  142. My biggest problem is the fact they will not keep their word…then blame everyone else for not being trustworthy.

  143. Elkhunter,

    OK, so your problem is not with the wolves per se’, only with the people they attract, their entourage so to speak? Why not address the issues with the people instead of apposing the presence of wolves? Wolf supporters are used to compromise. That is how they got their foot in the door in Yellowstone and Idaho. and Montana. For instance, I am apposed to the hunting of wolves anywhere in the nation UNTIL they have been restored to as much of their natural range as possible which includes Utah and Colorado because of the contribution they make to the ecosystem. However, I would be willing to agree to a hunt, even in Colorado after that restoration has been accomplished. And I’m about as stubborn as an activists gets.

    Surely you must realize the benefit to the ecosystems that the wolf affords. Wouldn’t the enjoyment of those benefits, including improved health of elk herds, be worth putting up with a few big mouth wolf activists? (Not that that would be me) Would you tollerate the wolves if you didn’t have to deal with activists?

    Also, could you please tell me why hunters have to wrap neon survey tape around every tree they pass? That has bugged me for years.

  144. I understand that, but they obviously viewed it as a possession and defended it to the death. If one tribe was stronger, they took it, if not, it stayed with the tribe that was strong enough to possess it. I know they had alot of respect towards different animals.
    As for wolves being killed off, pro-wolf people have been saying that from the beginning. And 13 years later the wolf population keeps growing and growing. Wolves are here to stay, they are not going anywhere, too much money and time was spent to get them here to just let them disappear. There will probably be hunts and managments put in place, just like every other animal, predator and prey alike. They will probably have population objectives and will issue tags till those objectives are met. I hear pro-wolf people saying how they will buy a tag to save a wolf, thats not how it would happen. If they need to kill say 50 wolves, they will issue tags until 50 wolves are killed, and hunters will have to check in every day to see if the objective has been met. Thats how they manage cougars in UT. Cat I know you are against hunting but you also probably realize how valuable it is to ALL animals, from habitat protection to conservation.
    The reason that I dont really have a desire to see wolves/grizz populations grow is because of activists. In one post they wanted to ban hunting in areas where grizz encounters are happening. I have read many of your posts Cat wanting to ban hunting and encouraging others to buy property and not allow hunting. So you can see why hunters/sportsmen are not jumping up and down to increase wolf/grizz populations. There is no trust, so we allow wolves in CO, then there are some wolves shot in conflicts, then you want to ban hunting in those areas where the conflicts arise. Thats the main reason I dont want wolves in UT, they bring alot of drama. I just dont trust pro-wolf/activists not because you are not good people, but that I can sense that it is a way to attack something that I really enjoy doing.

  145. Elkhunter, here is a link that might help explain Native American belief that land is not to be held by individual title.

    The 3rd paragraph under “What are Allotments” clearly states…”Culturally, private ownership seriously conflicted with the Universally held Tribal belief that land was a sacred resource to be used comunally.”

    Of course they fought among themselves, in the same way wolves fight over territory. But they did not claim absolute ownership over the land. They shared it with the beasts and that is the point of my statement.


  146. You won’t be able to hunt wolves if they kill them all first.

  147. Cat if I am correct I believe that the Indians would fight each other constantly to raid and rape and pillage other Indian tribes. Each tribe obviously wanted the best hunting and wintering ranges, just like wolves. I think they did claim ownership of the land, and as soon as another stronger more dominate tribe came along and forcefully took it from them. Early Native Americans were very violent towards other tribes that were not their own. I will see if I can find the link I read on that subject.
    It was a good video, I enjoyed it I might even head up to YNP with the Fam this winter and see if we can see some wolves. I dont see this wolf issue going away anytime soon though, both sides will continue to fight each other, no one compromises or see’s the others point of view, oh well as long as I can still hunt!!!

  148. “these creatures” that is.

  149. Marion, you ask “Please tell me how you share your home with “‘these””, and survive”. If by home you mean the area in which we, you or anyone lives, the answer is that we first have to realize that the land on which we live does not belong exclusively ot us. We have to share this earth with others who were created to reside here as well. The land was given to them too. Native Americans believed that the land was like the air we breath. No one can claim absolute ownership of the air or the land. Nature dictates that it will be shared with all creatures in their proper habitats. We cannot dictate laws to Nature. Those who try will suffer the consequences that Nature deems appropriate. The only unnatural inhabitants of the delicate arid ecosystems of the west are cattle and sheep. All the rest, wolves, bears, bison, wolverines etc. Were placed here by Nature. Man has the capability and MUST learn to live with them. When man tries to dominate Nature, the result is often devastating to man. It is not our right to rewrite the laws of Nature. Those laws were established at the time of creation. And Creation will win in the end. Do you wish to thumb your nose at the Creator?

  150. Lawks a mussy, Marion! The majority of articles on this blog have something to do with how “to live with these creatures”. The same is true of Ralph’s blog. The same is true of Sinapu’s website, and the Keystone Conservation website.

    Good people are living “with the creatures” every day, including people who grow cows and sheep–and most of them don’t whine about it. Yep, that’s right, the silent majority are just making it work.

  151. Seems like the backlash is occuring against the anti-environmentalists (look at the last congressional election results if you dont agree). “these creatures”?? I am afraid I don’t understand the question… Is your survival in jeopardy? You share your home with creatures? Run and hide!!!!!!!

  152. Look, I asked a simple question, I am researching the answer myself in Smith’s book, Decade of the Wolf…at least I hope it is there.
    Do you wonder why there is a backlash occuring against environmentalits? Read some of what you write.
    Since I am so badly off track, please tell me how you share your home with “these creatures”, and survive.

  153. You see marion, this is why you shouldnt be posting on this thread. Nobody is talking about the movie anymore because everyone is wrapped up refuting your tired claims! If you don’t like the film or if you like it, say so, but spare us your philosophical musings about wolf behavior and property because they have nothing to do with In the valley off the wolves! There are many other places on wild again where you can spout off about these topics. Your opinion has a place here, just not on this thread.

    Let me ask you this? Is your goal to hijack every thread on this blog and derail everyone off topic? If so, it is very sad.

  154. Marion, spare me. I am not in this for my own ego. I believe that we have committed a terrible crime against God and Nature to have nearly wiped wolves off of the face of the planet. It is exactly your attitude about “property” that fomented the slaughter of wolves (and the Wild in general).

    Why was it right for us to come along and declare that the land these creatures (and native peoples) had lived on for millennia suddenly belonged to us? The least we can do is share it with them, equitably.

  155. The problem is not wolves per sey, it is self important people who come in and decide they are justified in doing as they wish with land and property that other people own.
    The wolves are the victims of those people who are willing to use them to take over other folks property, and satisfy thier own egos.

  156. Wow…this is almost as exciting as the film!
    Not really….
    Found this page trying to find out more about Landis. The other night we watched this film glued to our seats in awe of how honestly and beautifully he filmed and told the story of the Yellowstone Packs. Having made several short trips out to Lamar over the years it was a deep reminder I need to get on making my plans to go back!

  157. Merely an observation Marion, not directed at you personally but to wolf haters in gerneral to which you help perpetuate the stereotype.. But if the shoe fits…

  158. I understand perfectly that all animals fight, it was the deliberate stalking that I found disturbing. Perhaps it was the way it was photographed, but it looked almost like a deliberate march in to destroy another pack. And at least in the video it did not really appear that they needed more territory since they tried to hold both.
    Steve, I am banned and always have been from Ralph’s page, so that is “Marion free” if it bothers you so much for an opposing viewpoint to be posted. It does him, so he did something about it.
    Cat, I hope you will note that I have never once found it necessary to resort to name calling to try to make a point. Does that really add strength to your point of view?

  159. Marion, all animals are terrritirial to some degree. Even bulls will fight each other to serious injury or even death, on occasion. That is why they make them steers. I’ve seen horses killed in paddock skirmishes. And humans are the worst to fight over territory. You do not win anyone over to your side with these uninformed comments. All you are doing is solidifying everyone else’s belief that anti-wolfers are ignorant uneducated neanderthals who care only about what can be exploited from the land without returning anything.

  160. There is very little we know about these and other animals. Going out and killing them will prevent us from ever unlocking their secrets. You can’t wrap your mind around the fact that territorial animals would kill one another for a territory? Rob, could we get a marion free thread to discuss positive stories like this film without her pulling everyone down with her negativity?

  161. Marion,
    Most species on the planet will fight among themselves for a verity of reasons and a large % will kill each other andsome even eat each other. It is called nature. The only thing is, is that once again you are trying to attribute human concepts to animals. I realize that you are that dense but please have some one look over your posts before you continue to remove all doubt.

  162. Why is it negative, they are what they are. I guess I knew the sloughs had run out the druids, but I didn’t know they stalked them, I didn’t even realize that they would go out of their way to kill others of their kind.
    I like for things to make sense to me, and that doesn’t. Neither does the unknowns coming in and trapping the female sloughs (?) in their dens. I’d like to know why, especially in the case of the unknowns apparently they didn’t want the territory or else it wasn’t as good as they thought or why???? Have they realized they were running out of prey in some areas before it became more obvious to humans? They were willing to take the risks it seems to me for some reason other than spring break.
    I’m not all wrapped up in idolizing them so I wonder about these things that do not seem to be normal, nor even in the best interests of those aggresive wolves.

  163. “I knew the wolves were viscious, but I didn’t realize they would delibertly set out to kill other than for food.” Why do you have to be so negative and drag down an otherwise positive thread? Are you here to be toxic?

  164. The only way to stop encroachment of man into the wilderness is to make it off limits to everyone, not jsut certain people.
    The very best part of that show was the eagle taking the food from the coyotes mouth. I knew the wolves were viscious, but I didn’t realize they would delibertly set out to kill other than for food.
    Beautiful photography, Landis is lucky to have that kind of access.

  165. I watched this special a few nights ago and I enjoyed it immensely! Watching the program prompted me to search out more information about the wolves (and other wild life) of the Lamar Valley…fascinating stuff!
    While there is still time, I hope we can stop the encroachment of man into what little wilderness we have left on the planet. To loose all this magnificence would be catastrophic in ways we can not yet imagine or comprehend.

  166. I saw it last night. It was a fascinating view of their lives.

  167. Amazing special! Actually being there for some of those events was surreal.