“Wyoming could start killing wolves that harm or harass wildlife in early 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Wednesday.” Jackson Hole News and Guide. By Cory Hatch.

Can you believe that, the US Fish and Wildfire Service is going to let Wyoming kill wolves for eating elk? Most likely on the state’s disease-ridden elk feedlots which are maintained despite so that the ranchers don’t have to share any winter range with wildlife while they collect their fat subsidy checks.

There will be one hearing on this in Wyoming. It is in Cody July 17. During the last public hearing in Cody, those who rejected this wolf delisting plan were harassed and shouted down by some in the audience. The hearing officer closed the hearing because of the lack of order. Local politicians threatened and harassed her until she opened it up again.

Why isn’t there at least a hearing in Jackson, Wyoming? That’s where the killing will be. I guess that’s a rhetorical question — they couldn’t put together a room full of ignorant thugs and welfare ranchers there.

Here is the rest of the story in the Guide.

Here is the info on the upcoming Cody hearing:

Tuesday, July 17th in Cody, Wyoming (12:30 – 8:30 pm) at the Cody Auditorium, 1240 Beck Ave. There are two hearings the same day in Cody. The first hearing, immediately following the informational Open House held from 12:30-1:30 p.m, is from 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. and concerns the proposal to modify the 10(j) rule in the region. The second hearing is regarding delisting in the region under Wyoming’s wolf control plan. A second Open House will be held from 4:30-5:30 p.m. followed by the hearing at 5:30 – 8:30 pm. This is the only hearing scheduled in the region pertaining to the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s delisting proposal.

Could they have made this any more complicated?

post 1314

 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

14 Responses to Wyoming could start killing wolves in early 2008

  1. avatar Monty says:

    Self-reliance & rugged individualism are the myths of the western cattle industry. After 1845, the settling of the Rocky Mountain West was done on the government dole. The federal treasury provided funds for railroads, dams, forts, irrigation canals, channeling rivers, roads and, yes, for predator control. The “West Was Won” by lying government contracts, crooked lawsuits, worthless Indian treaties and the “BS” of “Manifest Destiny” that acknowledged no ethics. And with the return of the wolf, a new Scapegoat has arisen that conviently deverts our attention away from more important issues such as air, water and land degradation.

  2. avatar DV8 says:

    I’m going to go to this meeting. I’m deeply concerned for my personal safety. Are there concerned groups in Jackson or the surrounding area with video capabilities to film the proceedings?

  3. The last hearing was videoed. I just talking with Suzanne Stone. They have it all on tape.

    Right now it is important to call Ed Bangs and ask for a 90 comment extension on the proposed new 10j rule and Wyoming Wolf Plan, and a hearing in Jackson, WY, which, from my view, is not prone to the hysteria that is whipped up in Cody.

  4. avatar Layton says:

    DV8,

    Maybe you should just take a can of pepper spray!! Isn’t that enough to protect you — in a non-lethal manner??

    8^)

    Layton

  5. avatar DV8 says:

    I called Ed Bangs today. I asked him about the meeting, and he told me about two other meetings in Boise and Helena. I mentioned that I was “a little nervous to go to a meeting in Cody.” He laughed and replied, “believe me, so am I, since I’m the guy talking to the crowd.”

    It’s a big problem when a public meeting has this type of fear factor surrounding it. This isn’t like going to Yankee Stadium with a Red Sox cap on and expecting a fight. This is a meeting where big decision are being made regarding the use of U.S. Public land – you land, my land, everyone’s land – not the National Gestapo land of Wyoming. I also called folks from Sinapu, from the Sierra Club, etc, and they are all in agreement that going to this meeting could actually be a safety hazard to pro-wolf advocates. I don’t see how anything that comes out of a meeting with this type environment can be taken seriously. But it will be. It’s not unlike the 1930’s (forgive me, I’m a history teacher) when the Nazi party held meetings in economically deprived cities with a highly racially segregated population to generate support for the extermination of Jews instead of locales where Jews and Germans generally got along.

  6. avatar be says:

    it seems to me that the meetings have little to do with a willingness to listen ~ if they wanted to listen, they would give more notice. the meetings are a technicality ~ pesky public oversight right?

    the meeting in boise will be taped ~ the audio should be better this time 😉

  7. I found some info from November 2005; I am guessing this is part of the unbiased “scientific” info the WY officials are worried about. This info is about the elk population in North Yellowstone Park.

    In the ecology journal OIKOS biologist John Vucetich and park service colleagues examined weather, hunting, and wolves as factors in the elk decline. Y’stone has had 7 years of drought and a severe winter in 1997 that killed many elk. They found that weather and hunting are mostly to blame. Biologist Mike Boyce of Canada’s U. of Alberta also came to that conclusion in a paper in the journal “ECOLOGICAL MODELING”. ”Montana’s increased “hunter harvest” quota on elk that leave the Park grounds, issuing a higher than ever 2,882 hunting permits in 2000. ” A decline in the elk herd was guaranteed; Boyce said, even if wolves were not present”.

    “The wolves influenced the behavior of Y’stone’s northern elk;” Boyce said, ” for example, the elk have adopted protective strategies, such as moving more often and in larger groups”. {elkhunter take note}

    “Also the increase in aspen, willows, and cottonwoods may be the result of fewer elk foraging less often in areas where wolves “lurk”.”

    USGS ecologist Dave Mech and his colleagues concluded that the summer of 2005 “grizzley and black bears , rather than wolves, are having a greater impact on neonatal elk calf mortality than any other predator”. “Zigzagging through fields where young elk lie, bears kill roughly 6 times more calves than wolves do”, the ecologist found. Elk calves are uniquely vulnerable; They tend to stay in place near danger instead of running. In May and June bears hunt through the Northern Range calving areas for them, looking for an easy meal. Mech said, ” Since 1987, the {bears} numbers have increased from 150 to more than 600 in the region, and many converge on the parks northern calving areas”. In 2005 wolf numbers were 106 and dropped steeply in the park because of disease. The Northern Range is just 204,000 acres.
    Following from a graph, condensed a bit.
    1986 elk 16,286
    1988 approx. 19,000
    1990 ” 15,000
    1991 ” 12,000
    1992 ” 12,500
    1994 near 20,000
    1996 near 17,000 ??
    1997 severe winter
    1998 approx. 12,000
    1999 ” 12,000
    2000 near 15,000
    2002 approx. 12,000 —– 2,882 hunting permits
    2004 ——– 8,338 elk
    600 bears
    106 wolves
    I thought this was rather interesting. If anyone has numbers for ’05 and ’06, please let me know when you have time.

  8. avatar Jay says:

    D. B.H.,

    One thing that seems to be overlooked by many of the “wolves killed all the park elk” folks is that it was Montana FW and P’s policy to reduce the number of elk that were coming out of the park and wintering on the border around Gardiner, hence the extremely aggressive cow harvest (which was also demonstrated by D. Smith et. al. to be on the “prime-aged cows”, the average age being around 7-8–this compounded the drop in numbers). Factor in another predator, along with black bears, grizzlies, lions, and coyotes, you’ve got a lot of mouths lining up at the table. One of the more amusing, nonsense arguments I’ve heard from the anti-wolfers is that the recent elk calf mortality studies were biased against bears because the researchers intentionally captured their calves in high bear density areas…it certainly couldn’t be that grizzlies were seeking out traditional elk calving areas!

  9. Jeff E and Jay—very much appreciated. I saw that the wolf pop., dropped to 54. The ideas the anti-wolf people come up with is certainly imaginative. If only they could put their time and energy into a real issue, or at least a hobby to keep them busy. Some days it is very difficult to keep a sense of humor. There should be a “nature appreciation class” as a requirement to graduate from highschool.

    DV8—I think you may find the movie “Matewan” of interest.
    It is about the history of bringing the union to coal country, specifically Matewan, WV. If you are still teaching it makes for a great class discussion. It was a real eye opener for me and my fellow students. It created a lasting impression. Many points to compare and contrast, but obviously on a much, much smaller scale than the atrocities of the nazis.

  10. avatar Monty says:

    d.Bailey right on about a “nature appreciation” class. Another observation about this topic is that most universities require freshman chemistry, english, math, biology & other courses to be taught. They should add one course: “Freshman Land Ethics” using Aldo Leopold’s writings as the text.

  11. Monty- thank you. I always thought something was missing in the required courses. That subject affects everyone and seems like a “natural” addition with the other general studies. It really seems odd that there isn’t such a class.

  12. avatar Sal says:

    Okay, so I went to the early session, not knowing what to expect but I drove for four hours to get there. I have been to hostile “wolf hearing” events before, and threatened, and followed. But I’m still here and I am still a citizen.

    I don’t fear anyone, and that’s good because I’m female and little. I have a response to anyone who would challenge my right to be at such an event. I tell them that I have all the rights they do and if they think I don’t belong there, well, neither do they.

    It’s kind of like people who yell at you for walking across the street or a parking lot while they don’t feel they have any need to RESPECT your right to get all the way to your destination before they pass over the same ground in their ride. I tell those folks that they may be upset at the pedestrian now but as soon as they step out of their vehicle, they become a pedestrian too.

    Besides, I have a method of keeping out of trouble when I go to these things and they concern me but I don’t buy into fear tactics. It works.

  13. avatar Miranda says:

    Ok wolves have to eat to. You kill cows for food and the wolves kill the elk for food. If they didnt kill the elks they would come into your yard and eat your animals!!! Would you rather have that then or have them eating the elks?

Calendar

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: