Today, Monday April 28, EarthJustice is expected to file a lawsuit trying to overturn the delisting of wolves one month ago — the handover to virtually unrestricted state management. Wyoming management has resulted already in at least ten, and probably many more, dead wolves from what was the state’s population of 188 wolves. The photos below appear to be 4 of them.

Warning if you click on this article, the photos might disturb you. They have been all over the place on email.

It’s not clear where the photos came from, but the taxidermy shop in the photos, “High Country Taxidermy,” is in Pinedale, Wyoming.

The photos eventually made their way by email to a wolf supporter. It’s not clear if they were meant to inform this person or to make him feel bad.

There were a number of scattered comments from various people who had forwarded them. The first comment seems to be this one:

Subject: WY wolves
These were all killed in the upper green River.
They are all about 7-8 years old and weigh about 130-150 lbs.
The gray one was killed by Todd Stevie.
The rest were killed by the Feds.

I don’t know why privately killed and federally killed wolves would be lined up to be made into pelts or mounts at the same place. There is a rumor that Wyoming is now trying to make money off the wolves it shoots, by selling the pelts.

Regarding the size of the wolves, there are flat out no 150 pound wolves. These wolves look to be average size to me.

Few wolves reach the age of 7 or 8, nor do the teeth show the wear of a 7 year old wolf. No one person or group would stumble upon 4 wolves of this age.

It should be fun tracking down the story of how these wolves got shot and lined up for a photo.

Tagged with:
 
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.

189 Responses to Some new wolf photos from Wyoming for lawsuit day

  1. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    i can’t believe we live in the 21st century

  2. avatar Mike says:

    You would have thought we would have got past the senseless killing in the 21st century, but…
    I guess some people just dont evolve quite as fast.

  3. avatar John says:

    Disgusting, purely disgusting.

  4. avatar Robert Hoskins says:

    If you loved the millennia of civilization beginning with the late Neolithic up through the 20th century, you’ll love the 21st century.

    My considered guess is that these were the four wolves killed in the livestock depredation control action near Cora, north of Pinedale, the wolves for which G&F issued kill permits to Wildlife Services because the ranch in question is on the trophy game-predatory animal boundary. However, as reported, these wolves were killed in the predatory animal zone, so the permits weren’t “necessary.”

    Ralph, I’ve written Doug Honnold at Earthjustice and asked him to post all the legal documents regarding this case, because of its historical importance. It would be something for you to link to as well.

  5. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    I’ve seen these photos already — on what I would consider to be a pretty red-neckish huntin’ discussion forum. Of course, most of the posters over there were whooping it up over the pictures, and making comments like, “well, it’s a good start.”

    Me personally, I’ve stated before that I have no problem with wolves being shot after an honest, fair-chase hunt or otherwise when it’s really needed. And I grew up around hunting and agriculture, so photos of dead critters don’t bother me.

    What bothers me is the yuck-yuck, vindictive reaction… as if wolves are some sort of vermin or enemy to be destroyed by any means possible. Most of the posts I read on that forum were dripping with it, and that pisses me off.
    – – – –
    I’ve written this before, but I want to do so again. On the part of the anti-wolf folks, the issue is almost entirely cultural resentment and conflict, and that’s why compensation for losses, better livestock practices, whether wolves deplete game populations, how many wolves live in the state, etc. are meaningless.

    It would be the same if there were 50 wolves killing 5 calves or 500 wolves killing 50. When you look at the Mexican wolf area where there are only 50 wolves, the fury is even greater than Wyoming. My explanation is that the culture there is even more hostile to change and xenophobia is higher. Ralph Maughan

  6. avatar vicki says:

    Hal,
    I agree. It seems a bit too “drunk in the wods shooting at what ever moves with my semi-auto” to be good sportsmanship.
    The fact that there seems to be some management/hunter type colaboration going on is disturbing.

  7. avatar JB says:

    “It would be the same if there were 50 wolves killing 5 calves…”

    It WAS the same when there were 50 wolves killing 5 calves. Hell, I was in Utah when 253 made his trip; at that time, one wolf was considered a wolf problem.

  8. avatar Jon Way says:

    Remember everyone, coyotes (the wolves’ similarly highly-evolved cousin) is shot like this on a daily basis just about nation-wide. We spend more money than the damage they cause to kill about 80,000 of them a year. Just b.c they can compensate for their losses, does this make it justifiable, esp. on our public lands? Personally, I don’t think so.

  9. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    And, Jon, would you care to tell us WHY coyotes are being killed by “Wildlife Services” which is funded by the U.S. taxpayer?

    Would it be on behalf of livestock producers?

    And if so, would this action of killing tens of thousands of coyotes on behalf of livestock producers be considered an indirect subsidy to them?

    Mack P. Bray
    Wildlife Watchers
    wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net

  10. avatar vicki says:

    But coyotes don’t kill elk as a general rule. Which is probably a large part of the reason wolves have come under attack. They have been betrayed as mindless mauraders, raiding the world and exterminated all ungulates. CRAP!
    The reality is, coyotes probaly eat as many pets and barn animals as wolves do, they are just smaller animals-and no onepays to hunt the,.
    Now if we had a season on domestic sheep, or chickens… or poodles…watch out coyotes!

  11. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Jon Way,

    Over-shooting coyotes can be counter-productive anyway… because the more you kill, the faster they breed and the larger litters they have. (I’m not against coyote hunting either, but as you point out, it’s a free-for-all war against them in most places.)

    But as Ralph just said, a simple “cause and effect” approach to just about everything — bereft of any knowledge or acknowledgement of the more subtle complexities of nature — seems to rule the culture in many places.

    Therefore, the simple cause-and-effect reasoning is, “the more coyotes we shoot, the fewer sheep, calves, fawns and elk calves will be killed by coyotes.”

    Now, that same reasoning is being applied to wolves, and it’s an uphill battle fighting such deeply-ingrained ignorance.

  12. avatar vicki says:

    Hal,
    Too true!

  13. avatar Jon Way says:

    Thanks Mack and Hal,
    those were my points exactly and I simply wish more Environmental Groups (like Sinupu) would go to bat for common animals like coyotes as well.
    Yes, Mack, that would be the ultimate form of welfare to ranchers… Another reason why I avoid eating beef.

  14. avatar timz says:

    Does anybody know how quickly a judge typically rules on the injunction part of this?

  15. avatar vicki says:

    We are , as Ralph pointed out, in combat with a culture.
    In order to defend our position, we need to adopt the enemies argument, and use it against them.
    They preach high atop their soap baxes that this is their ‘way of life’, it is a ‘family tradition’.
    We, on the other hand, get labels like ‘greenies, tree huggers, bunny lovers, granola bars….’and the list goes on.
    We idividually refer to ourselves as conservationists, wolf-supporters, environmentalists, naturalists, but none of them sticks. Why? Because the titles we use are dignified.
    Anyone who has ever been victimized by an abuser knows that their first and biggest mode of attack is to remove your dignity. When they objectify you, you lose yourself, and become easier to defeat.
    If collectively, we refer to ourselves as a “community”, it shows unification. A community is much harder to demean, belittle, insult, and defeat, because they have an obligation to defend one another.
    Community is what we battle here-the ideas of a population that are, right or wrong, defended out of obligation.
    The trouble we are having is that we fight too many of them on an individual level. We need to unite, as a community, and in doing so, provide ourselves the same “I have your back” mentality as we see the opposition using against what is right and what is rational.
    We need the sense of community, because it truly takes a village to raise a child.
    Great perspective Ralph.

  16. avatar Linda Hunter says:

    Hal I too have read the yuck yuck vindictive posts on the internet, not just about wolves but bears, coyotes and cougars. Where does this come from? What social ills makes a person so hateful and violent. All of it seems unfounded in facts, so it must be purely emotional. It also seems infective so that one person who has it can pass it on to buddies. I don’t want to know any of these guys so if anyone else does, can you explain how they got that way? Jon, by the way, I throughly enjoyed your book and if anyone else here hasn’t read it, it is quite worthwhile. “Suburban Howls” It’s on Amazon.

  17. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Hal – You wrote: “Me personally, I’ve stated before that I have no problem with wolves being shot after an honest, fair-chase hunt or otherwise when it’s really needed.”

    Am wondering if you could provide what you would see as “fair chase” or “when it’s really needed”?

    I am familiar with the Idaho hunting plan and there are no rules for “fair chase”.

    Already, a wolf was run down and shot by a man on a snowmobile near Ashton Idaho. No charges were filed. If and when a wolf hunting season starts, wolves will be baited in by “sportsmen” who will be leaving entrails and other parts of dead deer or elk. Wolves will also be “howled in”.

    State Mgt plans no longer require a ranchers to be proactive in protecting livestock. Wolves can be shot for “worrying” a pet peacock.

    Vicki – you wrote: “The reality is, coyotes probaly [sic] eat as many pets and barn animals as wolves do, they are just smaller animals-and no onepays to hunt the,. [sic]

    [maybe the sentence is supposed to say “… to hunt them” (?)]

    Am wondering, Vicki, where is the data that says wolves eat “pets”? Esp. more pets and barn animals then coyotes?

    I’m having trouble being part of a “community” that says hunting and killing wolves is ok, and that wolves kill more pets than coyotes.

  18. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Hal – You wrote “I’m not against shooting coyotes…”

    So does that mean you are for shooting coyotes?

    Maybe you could try reading “God’s Dog”?

    Senseless shooting of coyotes is no different than senseless shooting of wolves or any “predator”. At least in my book.

  19. avatar vicki says:

    Lynn,
    Hold on, I am notorious for typos.
    I don’t think that wolves actually eat pets…I was using the argument that coyotes eat(or kill I should have said) more domestic animals than wolves do. But either way, I did say the coyotes do more damage, I NEVER said wolves kill more, I said they get the rep that they do without any real justification. I was pointing out that they get the harsher judgement in all likelihood because they kill primarily elk. I also was saying that I think that they wouldn’t be nearly as sought after if elk were not such a profitable commodity.

    The community I was talking about is actually pro-wolf/pro environment…but many people who are pro-wolf will also be pro-hunters. If you try to seperate the two, you will lose a huge amount of supporters.

    I am like Hal, and I believe that EVENTUALLY, wolves will need to be hunted.

    I also know that one of the biggest arguements that anti-wolfers make is that “greenies will never stand for wolves to be hunted, so lets keep their numbers as low as we legally can.” That mentality and argument is a huge part of the problem, and I mean no offense, but I firmly believe that there will have to be a plan, that includes hunting, if the issue will ever be solved.

    I won’t debate the inevitable, wolves will be hunted. Will I hunt them? No. But am I an avid anti-hunter? Absolutely not. I am in the middle, neither extreme PETA, nor red-neck ill ’em all. I believe that the majority of hunters will hunt responsibley, and with reverence for wolves. Those hunters and anglers provide the majority of revenue that supplies land and conservation efforts for all the species they hunt. Like it or not, that includes wolves. I am not, in any way, an all or nothing type of person. Those people tend to lead very dissatisfied existences, as there is never any issue that will end with all or nothing, in my opinion. I also don’t think that making people feel it is one or the other is wise, otherwise we could give people a black or white choice, and there is no black or white choice to be made here. I doubt there ever was, or ever will be.

    But please, re-read my post, I never said wolves kill more pets…I said coyotes eat as many pets (should have said kill) and “barn animals”-a reference to cows and sheep…which sadly wolves do rarely eat. I was pointing out that coyotes are not getting the bad reputation that wolves do, because wolves primarily eat elk -which are a huge source of revenue in states like Wyoming. I also said (in another post) that if people paid to hunt cows or sheep, coyotes would be in a world of trouble.

    I am sorry if you would not feel a part of the community I was referring to, because I feel you are a very valuable source of information and could educate people as to the facts of wolf behavior. But I can not misrepresent myself….I am not opposed to a trophy hunt of wolves if, and when, their numbers and viability warrant one.

  20. avatar YNP4me says:

    This just in…. yay! ~ Vicky

    MONDAY
    4/28/08

    Earth​justi​ce files​ its legal​ chall​enge to the wolf killi​ng

    Just momen​ts ago, Earth​justi​ce attor​neys filed​ our case to stop the wolf slaug​hter in the north​ern Rocki​es.​
    And we aim to win!

    Earth​justi​ce has been calle​d upon by a coali​tion of envir​onmen​tal and anima​l right​s group​s — inclu​ding the Natur​al Resou​rces Defen​se Counc​il,​ Sierr​a Club,​ Defen​ders of Wildl​ife,​ and the Human​e Socie​ty — to use our legal​ exper​tise to stop the killi​ng now and compe​l the feder​al gover​nment​ to reins​tate Endan​gered​ Speci​es Act prote​ction​s for wolve​s until​ true recov​ery is achie​ved.​

    As soon as the feder​al gover​nment​ offic​ially​ delis​ted the north​ern Rocki​es gray wolf from Endan​gered​ Speci​es prote​ction​s,​ we filed​ a manda​tory notic​e of inten​t to chall​enge the decis​ion.​ Our notic​e went unans​wered​ by the U.S. Fish and Wildl​ife Servi​ce.​ Now it’s time for our day in court​.​

    The USFWS​ faile​d to take into accou​nt basic​ princ​iples​ of conse​rvati​on biolo​gy,​ disre​garde​d its own polic​ies,​ and depar​ted from past pract​ice in delis​ting the wolf.​

    As we go to court​ today​,​ Earth​justi​ce will argue​ that the Servi​ce:​

    -​-​used an outda​ted and biolo​gical​ly inade​quate​ stand​ard for deter​minin​g the numbe​r of wolve​s that must be prote​cted in order​ to maint​ain a genet​icall​y viabl​e popul​ation​;​

    -​-​ignor​ed the agenc​y’​s own requi​remen​t that wolve​s in the north​ern Rocki​es’​ core recov​ery popul​ation​s must be conne​cted and inter​breed​ befor​e they can be deeme​d recov​ered;​ and

    -​-​faile​d to take into accou​nt that state​ laws that curre​ntly gover​n the fate of the wolve​s in the absen​ce of feder​al prote​ction​s allow​ unreg​ulate​d wolf killi​ng.​

    At this momen​t,​ at least​ 20 wolve​s have alrea​dy been kille​d in the north​ern Rocki​es and aroun​d Yello​wston​e Natio​nal Park.​

    Earth​justi​ce is using​ all the legal​ tools​ at our dispo​sal to stop this trage​dy as quick​ly as possi​ble.​ Now that the Servi​ce has issue​d its final​ decis​ion,​ the court​s are the best way to stop the slaug​hter and get adequ​ate prote​ction​s reins​tated​ for the wolve​s.​

    Learn​ more about​ what we’​re doing​
    http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/wolf-delisting.html
    to save these​ magni​ficen​t,​ iconi​c anima​ls.​

  21. avatar jerry b says:

    Lynne….”God’s Dog”, a great book. I remember reading it years ago and wondering why anyone would want to kill something that they could learn so much from.
    Senseless killing?…will never understand what makes someone do it.

  22. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Lynn,

    Pretty much what Vicki already said. We can’t expect wolves to just be left alone. At some point, “managment” will have to come into play… and that will involve some sport hunting. Wolves are very intelligent, so I think they’ll quickly become very difficult to hunt.

    As for coyotes, I have no problem with guys who are willing to go (hike, snowshoe or ski) way out and try to either still-hunt or call them in. Coyotes are smart enough, there’s never going to be a significant slaughter of them that way.

    I don’t think I’d qualify any form of “hunting” from a snowmobile as fair chase.

  23. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    HAL – wolves are not “just … left alone” now. They are already baited, trapped and radio collared, or baited and howled in to be shot, or found by Wildlife Service plane and killed on ridges in winter. Very few packs are left alone and that’s only in very remote areas. It’s Idaho Fish & Game’s intent to collar EVERY pack in the state including those in our 4 million acres of Wilderness (the Frank Church River of No Return and Selway Bitterroot Wilderness areas make up most of that).

    A well known pack, Buffalo Ridge, was eliminated near here in February. Earlier this month I found a black wolf shot along the highway. Two days ago I saw a wolf hobbling up a hill near Stanley, a member of the Galena Pack, and believe he was one Wildlife Service crippled and never recovered in a “control” last October. So, I’d say we are hardly “leaving wolves alone” now. Wolves may be smart, but outfitters and any one who spends enough time out doors will learn how to find, bait, and kill wolves.

    As for coyotes, most are shot from or near roads. No one has to go “way out” to kill a coyote.

  24. avatar Cindy says:

    Is this in front of a taxidermy business?
    Stuffed wolves – Wow!
    I wonder if they stuff their family members
    when they die.

  25. avatar Connie Jeffcoat says:

    Yes, these are very disturbing photos. I telephoned the taxidermy business and was told that the largest wolf in the photo weighed in at 107 lbs. I’ll bet they were not much more than pups.

  26. avatar Cindy says:

    I know my “family” comment above was very mean-spirited and I am sorry to the universe for that. Wolf would never approve of such a negative attitude. Love and Light to all.

  27. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Lynne,

    Regarless, sport hunting is going to be part of the wolf management plan.

    Wyoming’s “free-for-all” zone is a bad idea. That’s where energy should be focused.

    I’ve only tagged along on one or two coyote hunts, and they were pretty far back out. Yes, I’m sure plenty of people hunt them close to town too.

  28. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Linda Hunter,

    The “hatred” of wolves, bears or anything else that eats other things for a living probably comes from a time when they really were “competition” in these parts.

    A settler family just barely hanging on… losing two of their three cows to wolves in the middle of a brutal 19th century winter would have been a pretty big deal.

    The problem is, too many minds in the West are stuck in that place and time.. and still see wolves, bears and cats in those terms.

  29. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    Great point, Hal 9000 ~ 19th settlers weren’t subsidized by the American taxpayer, were they… but think of the land given away…

    20th and 21st century livestock producers are heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer, and for what? To “save” a lifestyle? The beef from cattle grazed on AMERICA’S public lands is only some 3% of America’s total beef consumption. If we ate just 3% less beef, we wouldn’t need beef produced from cattle grazed on our public lands.

    Mack P. Bray
    Wildlife Watchers
    wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net

  30. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    robert,

    i don’t know about others’ filings ~ but i was able to get ahold of some of the main filings & wwp’s contribution are posted here.

  31. avatar Heather says:

    Wolves are the reason I have quit eating beef. (2 yrs now) Call it silly, but I am dead serious about this issue… supporting the killing wolves by purchasing hamburger or steak at my local Safeway or Albertsons is not what I will contribute to.

  32. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    Good for you, Heather and everyone else that’s either cut back or entirely stopped eating beef.

    Originally from Texas, I do miss my BBQ, though…!

    If anyone in the Jackson, WY area wants to split one of Bob Jackson’s 1/4 buffalos, let me know.

  33. avatar JEFF E says:

    Mack,
    I would be up for that.

  34. avatar Cindy says:

    Heather, I’m only on month ONE no beef! Between the buffalo and the wolves it was my time – thanks for the inspiration.

  35. avatar sal says:

    …and just think what it wuold be like if people were managed like wildlife….

    Personally, I think humans should be regulated and managed instead. We are the problem, folks. Not the other way around.

  36. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Mack

    I never did eat much beef to begin with. I was raised on deer and elk, so beef always tasted like a big ball of grease to me. Now, Bison on the other hand… wow, that’s some good stuff.

    I have thrown this out before, and wonder what your take is on it. As much as we like to poke at ranchers here, Mack, as I see it, they are often the only thing standing between us and subdivisions. I’ll take an intact ranch over the 10 subdivisions that could replace it any day.

  37. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Sal, I don’t agree with the way humans treat wildlife in many instances. But at the end of the day, I’m a Humanist and very much pro-civilization.

    Deep cynicism and misanthropy have just never appealed to me.

    I don’t think it has to be an “either-or” situation anyway… I think we can have both civilization and a greater respect for the wild.

  38. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    Jeff E, email me and we’ll set it up. Nice…! I’ve never slow smoked any buffalo, though… But I’ll learn. 🙂

    HAL 9000, check George Wuerthner’s great essay, “Cows or Condos? Neither!” ~ http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/cows_or_condos_neither/C38/L38/

    Mack P. Bray
    Wildlife Watchers
    wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net

  39. avatar JEFF E says:

    Hal,
    I always thought the subdivision argument was kinda suspect. Sure there are areas where there will be urban sprawl and others where “trophy” homes will be built, but two things occur too me.
    1. that’s happening anyway but mostly in areas that have an expanding job market, and
    2. For Subdivisions to be built there has to be jobs to be had, and that more than any thing else would seem to be the deciding factor.

  40. avatar JEFF E says:

    addendum:
    jobs within a reasonable commute.

  41. avatar Heather says:

    It wasn’t hard Cindy, especially seeing how the livestock industry in general treats “livestock” or cattle or beef or whatever word suits your fancy. I would say I am very much pro-civilization as well, but I dont like suffering of any kind whether animal or human. not necessary. The way most of those cows are bulldozed to their death… I think I’ll pass on eating that.

  42. avatar Catbestland says:

    Brian,

    Thanks for the link to the Pleadings. I can’t wait to see their Answer. You can bet it will be rife with pictures of supposed wolf killed livestock.

  43. avatar Heather says:

    I really hope Molloy will be able to see through all of that smokescreen. He seems to on other env. issues sometimes..

  44. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    cows vs. condos : that subdivisions will happen anyway is the main point from my perspective. livestock producers have been unable to, or just haven’t, demonstrate that any amount of welfare effectively deters the sell-off anyway when the price hits the right mark. Jeff E. is on the mark. Before producers’ ultimatum is taken seriously, they should have to demonstrate places where the economic conditions were ripe for development, but where livestock producers, as a matter of general trend, have turned down the sell-off ~ or better yet, there ought be contractual obligations to do so. They can’t and they won’t.

    ecologically, there is much debate about the cost-benefit. especially when you consider the private vs. public tradeoffs – which is never done. that is, a 400 acre base property that hinges 4,000 acre permit on public lands. the question becomes – is it wise to justify the less conspicuous destruction of 4,400 acres that happens with livestock grazing on inherently incompatible lands by allowing industry associations to use the threat of selling off the 400 acre base-property as a basis for milking a farcical ultimatum – a promise of which there is absolutely no legally binding terms let alone developed ecological justifications – or is it more wise to approach conservation from an angle with which there is the promise of lasting results and public determination – conserve the 4,000 acre allotment(s) – which are not under threat of development (except w/ fences, water developments, unnecessary roads, etc. from livestock grazing, logging, wells, etc.) as it is public land – and work with local governments to provide for zoning that respects wildlife when it comes to private property etc.

  45. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    p.s. – and the ironic thing is the cows vs. condo ultimatum is taken seriously all while they wage their war on wildlife throughout the west.

    that’s ‘open space’ conservationism

  46. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Mack,

    That was a great essay. Thanks for the link.

  47. avatar Robert Hoskins says:

    Brian

    Thanks for the links to the lawsuit documents on the WWP site. I received the first two documents from Doug Honnold today, but I do hope that we can establish a single location so that we can follow what’s going on. Especially important are filings from the feds and interveners.

    Aside from the historical interest of this lawsuit, I think it is also important that people can follow the legal process from start to finish. You cannot believe the things you learn from going through a case file. You learn especially who has a case and who doesn’t, and it’s interesting to see what lawyers who don’t have a case do to try to make their case.

    RH

  48. avatar Catbestland says:

    Brian,

    I would love to view exhibits 18, 19 and 20. I did not see them included with the Pleadings. Is there a copy of them floating around somewhere. I assume the consist of photos and newspaper articles??

  49. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Vicki – You wrote “I am like Hal, and I believe that EVENTUALLY, wolves will need to be hunted.” NEED TO BE HUNTED? If this is the case, why should Earthjustice bother filing a lawsuit to help wolves? Why isn’t Minnesota with 3000 wolves proposing a wolf hunt this fall like the N Rockies?

    State agencies and the anti-wolfers would especially like your statement that says: “But I can not misrepresent myself….I am not opposed to a trophy hunt of wolves … ”

    Then you wrote: “I won’t debate the inevitable, wolves will be hunted… I believe that the majority of hunters will hunt responsibley, [sic] and with reverence for wolves. Those hunters and anglers provide the majority of revenue that supplies land and conservation efforts for all the species they hunt. Like it or not, that includes wolves.”

    If you truly think that most hunters are going to kill wolves “responsibley [sic] and with “reverence” … then please read some anti-wolf websites, or the latest news about wolves being killed in Idaho and Wyoming by private citizens who are gloating and distributing photos of their wolf killing experience. For eg., the Ashton man who ran down the wolf with a snowmachine who said “I’d do it again”.

    A lot of other people besides hunters, contribute to “land and conservation efforts”. This is a time when wolves need a strong voice speaking up for them, rather than giving in to those who can’t wait to start a collection of wolf heads and pelts.

  50. avatar Save bears says:

    Lynne,

    Unfortunately, the reality of the situation right now, is wolves, will be hunted, legally or illegally, my biggest fear is if the de-listing is overturned, there will be far more wolves killed than has currently been, strong voices and legal papers don’t stop those hell bent on getting ride of them…and many will get away with it, lots of land, lots of time an quite a few running around that won’t talk..if the de-listing is overturned, I expect, they may end up back on the list….because numbers will suffer far greater than they are now..

  51. avatar John says:

    Why can’t people just grow up and get into the 21st century, their daddies were wrong about wolves, their granddaddies were wrong about wolves and so on. Its all just insufficient excuses, there is no biological or ethical reason for killing predators. At the end of the day there is no justification.

    Those who seek to control nature will never understand it.

  52. avatar vicki says:

    Lynne,
    I respect your point of view, but I think your version of what we are saying is skewed.

    I also want you to know that neither I, nor Hal have ever said we support wolves being hunted from snow mobiles. So you are throwing in an argument we never said we supported.

    Why support wolves being relisted? Well, because they are not numerous enough to sustain themselves, or to continue to help balance the ecosystem at this time.

    But I also don’t think they can just be left to their own devices. That is far fetched. They will eventually need to be managed. Why? Because human population isn’t.

    There is not enough habitat for wolves, or any other species, to just be left alone. It is sad, but it is a reality.

    I feel that wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes, elk, deer, all have value, none more than the other.

    I am not “giving in” as you put it. I do see a need for compromise. People with the approach you are taking are simply making the arguments against wolves more viable. You are giving life and basis to the real anti-wolf advocates argument that pro-wolfers wanted them released and intentionally misled everyone when they said they were aiming for a certain population. (I don’t consider myself or Hal to be in that category, regardless of what you may mis-believe). The all or nothing approach is just helping them to support the argument that once any wolf advocate is given an inch, they take a mile. You lose so much credibility and support in doing that.

    I actually feel your comment was quite offensive. Just because we don’t agree with your all or nothing approach, don’t assume you have the right to tell us what we actually support or believe in. I have absolutely always said I believe when wolves became viable without our constant interference, and when a concensus of biologists agree that they are not in danger of extinction in the lower 48, they should be hunted in a controlled situation, with a limited number of tags determined by those biologists.
    I have always stated I favor a controlled approach to hunting, not just letting any idiot with ammo run free shooting at what ever moves. I have never been in favor of them being listed as vermin.
    Being an extremist will only get you extreme reactions. Not every environmentalist is living naked in trees, and not every hunter is a crazed and heartless murderer. Until we stop acting like that is a factual analysis of the world, and acknowledge that no one will ever agree entirely, you can count on the legal yo-yo always pulling wolves out of the scientific control they should be under, and right into
    the political frying pan they are in now.
    A lot of people besides hunters and anglers do contribute… but not nearly as much. Frankly, you’ll sooner part the red sea than out law hunting. But this law suit isn’t about hunting being immoral or wrong, it is about how, and when wolves should be controlled, and by whom.
    You may have a personal attatchment to wolves. I do not. I personally think they are a vital part of a balanced ecosystem. I believe they have value, and at present, need protection. My personal attatchment is to the environment as a whole.
    And, I am sorry to offend you, it was never my intention. But I believe anyone who gives an all or nothing ultimatum is more likely to cause harm to that balance than good.
    I am not negating the need for wolves. But I am also not going to fall in line with those who think hunters should not be around. They play a key role in the environment too.
    See, when I read blogs and see that anti-wolf folks are saying really dramatized things like, “if wolves are allowed to be here, they’ll eat all the elk, and they will kill my dog”, I look at their statement and immediately discredit it or dismiss it as emotional ranting. It is blown to an unsupportable extreme. I think saying that I am “giving in to those who can’t wait to start a collection of wolf heads and pelts” is just as overly dramatic.
    I am quite aware that hunting wolves is a very emotional subject. But it is no more emotional to me than what is occuring with bison. I can be lead by my sensibilities, and by my conscience, but not by emotion that I base on what I feel would be a perfect world. The world is far from perfect. We are left to do the best with what we have.
    Why do you feel that anyone who would do what you wouldn’t is awful? Not every hunter is some crazy freak. They feel just as strongly about the environment as you do, they want to preserve it so they can enjoy it too. And you are no more entitled, and no less, to enjoy it as they are.
    I just believe if you really want people to take your view point seriously, you should try to see theirs too. It is, in my humble opinion, hypocritical to demand to be heard and then refuse to listen. So I try to listen, and then I choose what to take from what I have heard.
    So I can now say that I agree that wolves are needed, and I agree they should not be hunted at this time.
    I hear that you want them to be protected, and I agree that right now, they should be.
    But I disagree with you that I am giving in on anything, because my stance has not changed
    I also disagree that all hunting is sick. But I am quite sure that we will always have to agree to disagree about that.
    I still hold your opinion as valuable. I will always listen to what you say, and try to learn from you. Even if I don’t see every thing the exact same way you do, I still think you have so much to contribute. So I thank you for your input.

  53. avatar John says:

    Viki
    England banned fox hunting, the Netherlands banned wolf hunting.

  54. avatar John says:

    pardon the typo: Vicki.

  55. avatar John says:

    Vicki wrote: “There is not enough habitat for wolves, or any other species, to just be left alone. It is sad, but it is a reality.”
    If there is enough room for prey then there is enough room for predator, cull the predator and you will have an explosion of herbivores.
    Wolves will not breed when their food supply is substantially diminished and will spread out naturally in search of new territory if necessary. No matter which way you slice it, or what side you look on – there is no biological or ethical justification for leisure hunting of wolves.

  56. avatar vicki says:

    John,
    I disagree. I would not personally shoot a wolf. But there is a large monetary contribution made by hunters, for the support of habitat used by wolves. They (hunters) contribute funds for research, and for conservation for habitat that has an ultimate benefit for wolves.

    I truly think that if hunters stopped contributing toward conservation, and you require heftier tax contributions, the reaction of more people will turn anti-wolf. Right now, we can not afford any more opinions to turn anti-wolf.

    Americans are hard to part from their money when it comes to taxes. I may be wrong, (though I have it on good authority it would be a typical reaction in the present economy) but most people would rather have laws that are bad for wolves and the environment here, than pay more taxes in an economy that is already bleeding their bank accounts dry.

    I do agree, for the most part, that wolves will disperse and reproduce in equallibrium with their prey base and territory size. However, in the USA, elk hunting is a huge financial entity, and a huge American past time. Hunters are a large group of voters. Even if you disagree with hunting, you’d be foolish to think you will stop it in the USA.

    Let me ask, out of a genuine curiousity, weren’t the hunts you were speaking of largely a past time in more recent years, or aristocracy? (Thay may just be a stereo-typical portrayal, so I ask to find out the truthful population that did it. I am not trying to be obnoxious.)

    The reason I wonder is, in the USA, hunting is big business. It is in fact, a main stay in many states. So, like it or not, hunters will be the winner in this arena.

    I don’t personally think that all hunting is wrong. And it could be argued that wildlife could easily get lost in the urban sprawl. But, humans have evolved as part of the food chain, right along side wolves, bears, elk and plants. SO they are a part of the equation.

    The only way to effectively remove people from the equation is to remove people, period. Are you willing to do that? Most people are not. And, frankly, no one should ever be comfortable putting any animal’s welfare above human rights.

    American’s take their rights seriously. And, animal welfare has to be carefully balanced in a way that does not infringe on the rights of many, or allienate those who’s votes you need.

    If you piss off hunters, it won’t be long before they are changing legislation, and wolves will suffer in the wake of that.

    You can not force feed an entire population your idea of ethical. That is a can of worms you don’t want to open. This is already a bad situation, and a messy one too. That would be so counter productive, and harmful to wolves in the long run.

    To try to plan an entire species existance is simply impossible. To plan for their existance at all, you have to include all parts of the equation. Humans are a part of the equation with the environment and with wolves.

    You may not agree with the ethics of hunting wolves, or hunting in general. But what is ethical, and what is legal are two very different things. Ethics are a completely subjective thing, if they weren’t, there would be fewer civil wars, no human rights violations, the world would be a eutopia, if we all agreed on what was ethical. But we don’t, and never will.

    Agree or disagree with hunting, but either way, it is time to start choosing our battles and our allies more wisely.

  57. avatar Catbestland says:

    Vicki,

    While I do agree that ethical hunting does have it’s place in western society, I wholeheartedly dissagree that wolf hunting will contribute to maintenence of wildlife habitat. Wolves simply do not and will not exist in numbers high enough to require more than a token culling of the packs. They are not herd animals and their populations are not sustainable in the same manner. We can already see that the tag price is ridiculously low in areas where wolves are to be hunted now. And, I am willing to bet that hunting orgs. are not going to contribute anything to the maintence of wolf habitat, reasoning that the presense of wolves detracts from their ability to profit from the hunting of other wildlife. There simply is no ethical reason to hunt wolves. As mentioned an occasional culling may be necessary but I hardly think that numbers taken will ever make a significant contribution to the cost of maintaining habitat, especially considering the proposed price of tags.

  58. Folks should take note of this.

    About groups-

    We put particular instances into groups such chairs, popsicle, trucks, friends, enemies, hunters, wolf enthusiasts. We do this so we can mentally handle numerous instances based on their differences and similarity to each other.

    You can usually raise a controversy by asking whether a particular instance fits into a group or not, e.g., is a chocolate coated fruit bar really a popsicle?

    What kinds of people fit in the group called hunters? Is Hillary Clinton really a hunter? Is a poacher a hunter?

    Most importantly to what degree are those in the group of hunters politically organized, and to what extent does this group overlap with wolf enthusiasts?

    So Vicki you should say “if you piss off [politically organized] hunters, it won’t be long before they are changing legislation.” This is a minor, but important correction.

    I think the wrong portion of the group we call hunters is the better organized.

    One of my goals on this blog is help the portion of hunters that have a more general enthusiasm for the natural outdoors come together in various ways, including the political, with those who have an enthusiasm for the natural outdoors but don’t hunt.

    Therefore, I don’t like generic hunting versus anti-hunting debates.

    Folks, please keep this in mind. Perhaps I should move this up to a post.

  59. avatar vicki says:

    Ralph,
    Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you about hunting debates.
    I would fall into the group of the more enthusiastic. Again, I wouldn’t hunt wolves, I don’t hunt anything I won’t eat. I don’t even keep fish, because I don’t eat them. (Excepting lake trout in Yellowstone Lake.)

    Cat,
    The funds from hunters may not be ear marked “Wolves”, but it is spent on conserving the habitat they are in. Therefore they are supported by hunters.
    That being said, I completely agree that the tags for wolves are too low. They should be, in my opinion, in the same range as moose, and big horn tags. I also think that any hunt for wolves should be held in the same way those hunts are held here in Colorado, once in a life time type lottery draw, or once every decade. With preference points being given to hunters who have put in and not been drawn in other draws.
    I already stated that before in another string.
    Under those circumstances, a hunt will be more valuable, and therefore more lucrative for conservation of wolves. I also think it will be easier to maintain numbers of wolves that way…with more control over which packs are thinned out.
    I know wolves are not herd animals, I also know that they will need very species based control. Again, I am opposed to them being called vermin. But to say there will never be a ned to hunt wolves, just cull them, is a contradiction.
    How do you cull them? The same way you cull elk. They are shot. Now, you could sell tags, like I said above, and profit the organization that will eventually be entrusted to maintain welfare of wolves. Or you could just have officers shoot them, or you could opt for what they have voted to do in RMNP and have sharp shooters come in a kill them. No matter what you call it, it is still shooting wolves. It will still be necessary.
    I am in agreement with Ralph, we need to better unite with the hunters who are outdoor enthusiats and environmentally friendly.
    Again, good point Ralph. I overlooked the “politically organized” distinction because I felt that I was addressing them from my point of view, and I group myself with those who are organized. I should have clarified. I am usually better about that. I try not to over generalize, even when it comes to ranchers and energy companies.
    To everyone else, I apologize for not making that distinction.

  60. avatar Catbestland says:

    John,

    Fox hunting is definitely NOT banned in England nor in the US.

  61. avatar Save bears says:

    Cat,

    Well it seems the issue of Fox hunting in England is a bit of a sticky wicket, there was a ban placed into law, but it still allows foxes to be shot or taken with birds of prey…you cannot pack hunt foxes any longer, but you can use two hounds to “Flush” a fox and then shoot it, or let loose a bird of prey on it…

    You might take a look at…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4726566.stm

  62. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Ralph said: “One of my goals on this blog is help the portion of hunters that have a more general enthusiasm for the natural outdoors come together in various ways, including the political, with those who have an enthusiasm for the natural outdoors but don’t hunt.”

    I could not agree more. An ongoing frustration with me is a deeply-ingrained ignorance of, or even disdain for, bigger-picture ecology within the general hunting community. “Environmentalist” is a dirty word among many hunters. I think that’s not only wrong, it’s bordering on flat-out self-defeating.

    What I’m finding is that because they spend a fair amount of time outdoors and are very knowledgeable about the habits of a few particular species, some hunters think they know everything they need to know. They seem unwilling or unable to step back and realize there might be a larger picture. Knowing everything there is to know about when, where and how to find a gigantic and wiley old mule deer buck does NOT add up to a comprehensive knowledge of how the environment works, and what’s best for it as a whole.

    The vindictive hatred toward wolves is only a symptom of a deeper problem within the hunting community. I’m developing a growing interest in at least trying to educate more hunters on big-picture ecology issues. “Find your inner tree-hugger” is a motto more hunters need to explore and live by, IMO.

  63. avatar Linda Hunter says:

    Emotionally I side with Lynne, rationally I understand Ralph’s goal and agree with Hal about a deeper problem within the hunting community. In Lynne’s defense, when you are out in the woods observing hunters, animal control and their handiwork it is all inexcuseable. I believe I said in one post that I thought the hunting community needs a new icon in the media. They need a person they respect to show them the way to their honorable path again. Cabela’s isn’t doing that and unfortunately marketing may account for some of the vindictive hatred. Hal you describe the problem really well. I think we should all try to explore an answer. I have learned on this blog that generalizing about hunting doesn’t cut it. I am glad that Hal has an interest in trying to educate more hunters on the big picture ecology issues. . I believe that if we are to step out of political mess of western wildlife practices that is an absolutely key thing. How you would do that is an interesting question of which I don’t have an answer. Feeling like I do about the things I have seen I can’t be a direct part of it.

  64. avatar Save bears says:

    Cat,

    Actually fox hunting is banned in the UK, but there seems to be quite a few loopholes that the locals can run through.

  65. avatar vicki says:

    Hal and Linda,
    I agree too. Wolves and the hatred of them is based on a lot of ingnorance, a lt of misunderstanding, and a lot of irrational fear.
    There are honorable hunters, as Linda states, and I would add that the good guys who aren’t crazed idiots need to polish the rarnish that has been done to their reputation.
    I would hope that Ralph is successful in unifying those hunters who would be proactive in th environment and consrvation, and those goo dpeople here who would seek the same ultimate goal, a better understanding or nature and a way to help save it.
    I could not do what Lynne does, I could not go out and watch a pack, and study a pack, and then see it’s demise. I wouldn’t have the emotional strength to do it. That is why I try very hard to remain unemotional about wolves. Believe me, it is a daily struggle.
    WHen I watch them, my heart tells me to love them, and nutrture them. My head knows that will end in heart break. So it is quite the battle of inner voices.

  66. avatar vicki says:

    Colorado has a mandatory hunter education course that has to be completed in order to obtain a hunting license. Perhaps there should be some sort of national requirement that states receiving federal funds for forest management should require an environmental awareness, or eco-civics class.
    I’d go.

  67. avatar Catbestland says:

    Save Bears,

    The killing of foxes when pursued by hounds is banned in the UK, not fox hunting as a sport. The entirity of the Brittish Monarchy would colapse and have no reason to get up in the morning if the sport of fox hunting was banned. It’s quite big business with scopy field hunters going for as much as $100,000 (in US). This was once my business. Trust me, the sport of fox hunting is NOT banned in the UK.

  68. avatar Catbestland says:

    This is a bit confusing I admit, But the ban on killing foxes and hares in a chase with hounds has not impacted the sport of fox hunting. I trained and rode with Whixkey Road Hounds in Aiken South Carolina for several years and rode once with Roaring Fork Hounds in Aspen. There was never a fox (or anything save a flask of brandy) killed in any chase. In fact I cannot remember a time when the chase was not innitiated by dragging a hide dowsed by a store bought scent. (They don’t call the Roaring Fork Hounds the “highest hunt in the US for nothing). I think they now must prove that they hunt only to a dragged scent.

  69. avatar JB says:

    Ralph said: “Folks, please keep this in mind. Perhaps I should move this up to a post.”

    Please do!

  70. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Vicki – for the record, I grew up on a ranch in a remote area of Oregon and went hunting with my family from the time I could walk. I’ve killed deer for venison and as a youth, shot other wildlife “for fun”. We called it “varmint hunting”. I also raised livestock. I understand hunting, hunters and how they vary with their beliefs and actions, and the politics that is behind states’ actions with regards to wolves.

    Every day I meet and talk to a variety of people, some who like wolves, some who don’t, and some who are undecided. That’s part of my job. Sometimes we agree to disagree. I’ve worked on conservation and wildlife issues in Idaho since 1983 and direct a small non-profit group. You can read about us at wildwhiteclouds.org.

    Am not sure where you live, or your livelihood or experience in conservation and politics, but, I’m in the midst of wolves that are highly threatened because of delisting. When I wrote a declaration for the Earthjustice lawsuit filed yesterday, it never entered my mind to say that wolves will and should be hunted.

    Some posts on this thread (and others) are really long and going over ground that’s been hashed out before. And I don’t think that Aldo Leopold’s “greenfire” quote will ever be outdated. So, I’m going to cut out of this discussion, and go find the local wolves and see what they are up to.

  71. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    sometimes i wonder about this hunting distinction that Ralph notes. i think that the anti-predator ‘hunters’ are more vociferous – and yes, politically organized. i think the less vocal folk who enjoy the outdoors don’t whine and bitch as a consequence of the relative wisdom and humility of the type – it’s a character thing – the perspective… maybe in the perspective it becomes more personal — where-as obnoxious proclamations and expectations of the outdoors – and fear of it – are a characteristic of the ones that don’t have such perspective. maybe i’m off base. i just think of it sorta like hyper right-wing evangelism vs. the more politically quiet/humble progressive spiritual practitioners. i hope that analogy doesn’t spin the thought off.

    it’s a problem though – the wrong ideas are being promoted/spread.

  72. I think a lot of the problem is that hunting is no longer taught in any consistent fashion that emphasizes good reasons to hunt and methods that are proper and those that are not. Fish and Game departments do try, but they are outweighed by other more pervasive sources.

    There never was a golden age, of course, but too many today get their ideas from media run by businesses that are overwhelmingly interested first in selling gear. These sources are also less and less interested in promoting conservation because it doesn’t pay for them, at least in the short run.

    While sustainable hunting of carnivores is possible in some places, it is not a big money item like millions and millions of whitetails, muleys, and elk. There never can be as many bears as elk, or cougars as deer.

    Too many sources of good information about the environment are at least somewhat negative about hunting in general.

    Too many animal rights groups are not much better informed about ecology than those they oppose.

    There just isn’t much accurate education for the general public going on right now about wildlife.

  73. avatar Me says:

    You guys just don’t get it do you. There was a reason they wiped the damn wolves out back then, and not because they helped anything, thats for damn sure. And coyotes are no better. Someone said that they were only pups, yeah, maybe when a full grown man weighs 8 pounds and is measured in inches. Come out to the real world from your little appartments in NYC. The only reason you want them around is so you can drive to Wy. and see a wolf or a grizzly bear out of your window and say your saving the enviroment. Honestly, do you have a clue what wolves do? You all just like to think that you know them when none of you have probably ever seen one. Wolf hunting = good

  74. avatar vicki says:

    Ralph,
    I remember learning about the local wildlife as part of a civics class in school, about 4th grade.
    They used to be big on knowing about the animals associated with each state back then.
    At some point we lost touch with teaching kids the basics.
    When I began hunting, I had to learn how to do it “properly, or not at all!” My dad was very insistant on that point.
    I had to learn how to shoot, when to shoot, the safety of shooting, the nature of the animal I hunted, and how to give back for what I was taking.
    The responsibility of teaching “proper” hunting has fallen far from home. I think it is because Americans spend less and less time with their kids, and important lessons fall to the way side.
    My dad is an economist, turned teacher, who also has a degree in religeon and philosophy. He talks about our disconnection from our kids, and our world all the time. He tells me a lot that parents accept less and less responsibility for their kid’s behavior. He says they really feel kids should learn everything in school.
    I place a lot of faith in programs like the one Bob has mentioned. I would love to see basic environmental science be taught in schools. But when my kids (12-20 yrs old) bring home science books about animal biology or environmental science, they are not what I would expect them to be like at all.
    I don’t know if laws mandating public schools teach ecology would be passed. But if you linked the ability to obtain a hunting license to taking a course about basic animal facts or environmental conservation, people who hunt would have to take it.
    Wishful thinking perhaps.

    Lynne,
    thanks for the background info. it is nice to get to know more about you, and where you are coming from.
    I actually grew up knowing hunting and fishing to be the tie that bound my family. It is still one of the rare things we all get together to do. I have hunted deer and elk, but only what I’d eat. I’d never be able to hunt wolves, coyotes or bears myself. I couldn’t stomache it.
    You are quite right about hunters being a mixed assortment.
    I agree that delisting is not at all appropriate for wolves at this time. I support the efforts to regain their protected status.
    I tend to have more compassion for the toothy guys than the prey.
    I actually manage a health clinic. I am not with wolves every day, but I do deal with a bunch of animals.( Two legged kind-they are quite a nasty breed at times.)
    I studied biology in college (and business, 3 years), but stopped going to school to support my kids. I will go back someday. I opted for a health care career for job security and stable hours for my kiddos.
    I was a single mother for 14 years. And I often worked two jobs to pay for our annual trip to YNP. But I insisted on going, because the experience was invaluable for my kids.
    I honestly believe in fostering children’s love of the environment begins at home.
    Happy watching and have a good evening.

  75. avatar Save bears says:

    Wow “Me” Coming from a Montanan that lives in Wolf country, as well as ranch country, I can 110% say, your the one in the dark…the middle is somewhere in between, but you extremists on the anti-wolf side, are going to continue with your extremist views and then they will end up back on the list, then you will have to be a criminal to shoot them…there is a good many on this site, that actually live in the areas that wolves are, and have a pretty good handle on things..

  76. avatar Catbestland says:

    Me said. “There was a reason they wiped the damn wolves out back then, and not because they helped anything, thats for damn sure. And coyotes are no better”

    Who was it said. “T’was the sharp toothed wolf honed the fleet footedness of the Antelope?”

  77. avatar JB says:

    Me said: “Come out to the real world from your little appartments in NYC. ”

    I don’t think anyone who regularly posts here lives in New York City? The majority live in the West or have lived their in the past. Perhaps you need to come out from behind your outdated stereotypes and silly folklore?

    “Honestly, do you have a clue what wolves do?”
    Yes, we all know that wolves kill and eat elk, deer, moose, and sometimes even [gasp] livestock!

    That was Me’s first post. He probably never read much of anything on the blog before posting, and so his opinions were uncontaminated by knowledge. Ralph Maughan

  78. “Me’s” comment is very interesting because it is uncommon to succinctly see so many stereotypes about those who disagree plus thinking about canid carnivores dating from about 1910.

  79. avatar Catbestland says:

    Its like a mini time capsule from a hundred years ago has been dug up and posted on this blog.

  80. avatar JB says:

    Reminds me of a funny bumper sticker I saw while living out West. It read:

    Welcome to Utah! Set your clock back 50 years.

  81. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    ynp4me.

    I actually WANT more photos like those and the ones at the top of this thread put up and posted everywhere. Plus, more and more stories by guys bragging about how they “hunted” wolves by running them down on snowmobiles.

    Why?

    Well, as the old saying goes:

    “Give ’em enough rope…”

  82. avatar C. Walton says:

    Me said:
    “There was a reason they wiped the damn wolves out back then, and not because they helped anything, thats for damn sure.”

    No Me, they killed off the wolf for the same reason as they killed off my state’s native Merriam’s elk–ignorance and apathy!

    “The only reason you want them around is so you can drive to Wy. and see a wolf or a grizzly bear out of your window and say your saving the enviroment. Honestly, do you have a clue what wolves do?”

    Wrong. I want them here because of the well documented role they play in balancing our ecosystems. And because they were thriving here before europeans came here and exterminated them. It is not our place to utterly destroy something that had achieved biological success and survival over tens of thousands of years.

    “Come out to the real world from your little appartments in NYC.”

    Nope, wrong again. I was born and have lived in rural eastern Arizona my whole life. The mexican wolf was restored to this area and many people here are in favor of allowing a place for the Mexican wolf here. It just so happens that extremists like you tend to be the more vociferous and vocal.

  83. avatar Me says:

    I don’t believe in hunting them unethically and believe they should be hunted with fair chase in mind. And alot of you have been saying, I can’t believe some people are thinking like this in the 21st century. What the hell, are we supposed to forfeit our common sense and become tree hugging liberals when the 21st century rolls around? I mean, seriously?

  84. avatar wyoming joe says:

    Sometimes things right under your nose are hard to see. So you live in the ‘west’. If you can’t understand why an unmitigated wolf population is unacceptable to the people who have been forced to co-mingle with wolves, your not very perceptive.

    Life does not revolve around wolves: not even in Wyoming. We live hear. We don’t want wolves running our lives. But we have no choice. You pro-wolf folks won that battle.

    By definition, wolves are predators. ALL predators in Wyoming are managed one way: shoot on-site. Sorry, but that is law in this state. If you can’t understand that, you might as well live in NYC.

  85. Joe,

    I think most of the people who post to this blog live in the West and many in wolf country.

    I live in Pocatello, Idaho and have written two books about the Wyoming backcountry and one about Idaho’s.

  86. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    Me,

    i mentioned that i can not believe that this is happening in the 21st century because those photos are so reminiscent of those that were taken during the extirpation of the last century – as has been noted by others.

    and yes – i can only speak for myself – but i expect that you forfeit the sense of hyper-entitlement/obnoxious-indignation (what you refer to as “common sense”) now that the 21st century has rolled around.

    i want control of your way of life, your custom and culture, your land, i’ll tell you how to raise your children, and your belt-buckle ~ you can keep your music ~

    i’ll manage these things from my apartment in NYC – or if I’m on my biannual vacation to the cottage in France, i’ll have to do it from there – the internet is an incredible thing now-a-days.

    we’re coming for you ‘Me’ – we want it all…

  87. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    a wise person once told me not to be sarcastic on the internet. oh well.

  88. avatar Catbestland says:

    Me, . . . As in “Me and my way of life are the only things that matter?” Perfect choice for the Username of someone who cannot see beyond avarice and paranoia.

  89. avatar Nathan says:

    Wyoming Joe-
    The New York city jargon is as old and as lousy as the salsa that created the slogan. Further it doesn’t matter where anyone is from especially if they are a citizen of the United States. Americans are entitled to speak out about there public lands..even if they may never have the chance to visit the plot they are speaking about. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU.

    Just because many of us are pro wildlife and believe that a predator should have a decent chance of living in the wild does not make us urban dwelling ‘city folk’ who dont have a clue about what is going on.

    It doesn’t matter if the science comes from New York Istanbul or Wyoming itself, the facts don’t lie. The war on predators is one of old habits and hatred towards a group of animals that science proves are a essential part of a healthy ecosystem.

    I grew up out here in the west have spent many summers in Wyoming and consider myself very much so a person who is capable of having a valid locally founded opinion.

  90. avatar Me says:

    Then if wolves help the eco system so much then why do they mainly eat livestock? Oh, I’m sure your gonna say, ‘because there aren’t enough wild animals to feed them’ no, that means there are too many wolves.

  91. avatar Me says:

    By the way way, Wyoming Joe, you seem to be the only person on this sight who understands the wolf population and has any common sense.

  92. avatar Nathan says:

    It appears that the masses of Wyoming are targeting are website in retaliation for voicing our opinions to the governor of Wyoming. 🙂

  93. avatar JEFF E says:

    Me
    Where in your benighted psych did you come up with the moronic idea that wolves eat mostly live stock?

  94. avatar JEFF E says:

    http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hardpeg/images/hillbillies.jpg
    Me and Wyoming Joe considering their next post

  95. avatar JEFF E says:

    sorry, could not resist

  96. avatar Linda Hunter says:

    Jeff E . . bad bad -LOL!! Now hopefully ME will find a picture of a granola bunny hugger from NYC for another laugh, maybe of two girls and we can introduce them all – We better stop this or Ralph will kick us all off.

  97. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    JEFF E, I FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR LAUGHING WHEN I SAW THAT PIC…!

  98. avatar vicki says:

    too funny, I bet they aren’t that good looking!

  99. avatar vicki says:

    Mack,
    They finally published the editorial. It even came with a photo of a dead wolf to hit the point home. I sent you a copy.

  100. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    Great editorial, Vicki…! Keep writing ~ never stop. 🙂

    Mack P. Bray
    Wildlife Watchers
    wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net

  101. avatar Nathan says:

    just remember that as we assign sterotypes of rednecks billy bob joe, we are also being stereotyped by them as crazy tree hugging rich city dwelling economy destroying eco-terrorists that would take a bullet for a bunny by them.

    As hard as it is to resist to join in the fun and make some redneck jokes about all the ‘hicks’ up in wyoming it does nothing to depolarize the two opposing groups and find a common ground where the issue can be resolved for the long term.

  102. avatar wyoming joe says:

    The Govenor of Wyoming is well aware of his constiuent’s views when it comes to ‘endangered’ species. Me and Me are, in fact, among the vast majority in Wyoming (as well as Idaho and Montana) on the issue. I realize we are in the minority with respect to the ‘coasts’ (which is precisely why we’ve been forced to co-exist with the dirty buggers), but we won’t be told how to live. I don’t expect you’d appreciate that either. I don’t tell you how to live, so please return the favor.

    The fact is, we hunt, fish, hike, camp, snowmobile, watch wildlife (yes, we enjoy seeing live wildlife also, huntin’ season ends each year, you know), and generally spend all our free time in the outdoors. Pictures of dead animals may offend some, but it is common-place for many, many people in this country. But, you know, we’re just bitter about our lack of opportunity.LOL

    I wonder how many of you actually understand the life of the typical rancher in Wyoming. Sure, you can berate them for receiving subsidies, but their life is hard, harder than moast of you will ever know. I’m not a rancher, but I grew up with many, and have respect for the struggles they endure. Now, on top of it all, add the reintroduced (shoved-down-your-throat) CANADIAN wolf, a most effective predator that loves your new-born calves. And now your telling me I can’t protect my livelihood, ON MY OWN LAND! What has this country come to?

    Somehow, I’m guessing none of you would feel any better about the situation, if it were mandated to you.

    FYI; wolf numbers in Wyoming are much higher than the 188 stated above……and the number quoted by FWS is a modest estimate also, as those are easily counted (and acknowlegded). No worries about future numbers though; they bread like rabbits…24% per year.

    Let’s face it; most of America has very little understanding of what life is like in the places that they’ve mandated wolf reintroduction. Most on this site fall in this category.

    BTW, I’m impressed you found my picture (on the left); I can’t speak for Me.

  103. avatar vicki says:

    Wyoming Joe,
    Do you really think you are the only person in the USA entitled to an opinion? Please, don’t stand on your American Rights Pedestal, and forget that there are more people than those in Wyoming who afford you those rights. Hop on down and take a look around you.
    There is an entire country full of ranches and farms. Wyoming is not a fourth world country. Mandating wolf reintroduction doesn’t make you all that different. Every state has it’s issues, most of them just aren’t so ignorant about how they deal with them.
    Funny that you should mention breeding like rabbits….certain species are now endangered, and the whole world thought that would never happen.
    By the way, you do tell us how to live, you tell us how to stay out of this, or shut up about that… you say stay home, go anywhere but here. “Those dirty buggers” are just as entitled to their opinion as you are. They, however, seem to be a little less stuck in the past, filled with hate, and bent on being bigotted.

  104. avatar billybob says:

    wyoming joe wrote the vast majority in the three state area have the same view as him and me do. Maybe we will see come November here in Idaho anyway.That is if the Save our Elk group can find enough people to sign their petition to get on the Idaho ballot this fall.Why are they having such problems finding enough register voters to sign the petition it must be a “silent majority”

  105. avatar Save bears says:

    Wyoming Joe,

    I live in Montana Ranch Country, My wife and her family has lived in Montana Ranch Country, since the late 1800’s and we don’t agree with you….as many don’t, your on a vengeance quest..as is the dying bread in the West, no coasts involved..Our family has homesteads in Lincoln, Ennis, Florence as well as Great Falls(this one dates to the 1880’s)..I may not know about Wyoming Ranchers and their hard life, but I do indeed know about Montana Ranchers and the life we live..and that includes living with wolves

  106. avatar dbaileyhill says:

    Wyoming joe said;
    “but their (ranchers) life is hard, harder than most of you will ever know”.

    You have got to be kidding! I know people who have it much harder than ranchers. And they aren’t receiving subsidies, nor are they whining about how hard life is or because they are having trouble doing the work they love.

    I can’t even begin to tell you how angry your assumption makes me. You put one of your rancher friends in my shoes, just for a day, and then ask them how tough their life is!!
    Butch up and grow a pair!!

  107. avatar Me says:

    How the hell would you know what a ranchers life is? Let me guess, you grew up in ranch country, so now you know everything there is to know about ranching and how easy their life is. And alot of you are saying, Well me and/or family member grew up in ranch country. That dosen’t mean that you are ranchers. I bet you couldn’t find one rancher in the entire world who wants wolves introduced into their area. Most ranchers don’t hunt or anything and they want them outa here. You guys don’t know what it is like to be a rancher.

  108. avatar Me says:

    BTW I’m glad you found my picture.

  109. avatar vicki says:

    Me,
    Now even ranchers don’t know how hard ranching is according to you. Is there anything you won’t say to try to be right?
    Ranching may be difficult, but it is more about the economy than wolves. It is also no more difficult than many other “ways of life”. I find it funny that ranchers cry foul now, and claim they are being forced off of public lands unfairly and their culture is being snuffed out by environmentalists, when they are, historically, at the heart of the demise of Native American cultures.
    BTW, there have been ranchers who have posted here that favor wolves, and many who hunt.
    Let me take the latest publicized approach to your whining or view point…, if you don’t like it, don’t do it, stay away, get out. If ranching is so darn hard, why do it? I’m telling you, from my point of view, we have enough feed lots to more than feed the beef demand in this country. We could get by with one less rancher who feeds off the environment.

  110. avatar Save bears says:

    Me, again, YOUR wrong, you have no clue at all of what I or any of us do, now do you? Many of the ranchers in our area, including the one that I help on frequent basis, have no animosity against wolves and do live with them..I never claimed ranching life was easy….and I don’t believe it is, I also know for a fact that there are things that can be done in a non lethal manner to mitigate the effects of wolves, besides chasing them down on snow mobiles and shooting them in the guts…

    Wyoming’s plan is flawed, it has been flawed since day one, and is the major reason, it took so long to get delisting, which I am all for, Until such time as Wyoming pulls it collective head out of their ass, there is going to continue to be this fight!

  111. avatar wyoming joe says:

    Good morning everyone,

    Wow…touched a nerve with that one (sorry if I upset you dbhill – 1:25 am? – get a life).

    Everybody take a deep breath. This site is over-run with pro-wolf people, and it’s about time a few of us anti’s have a say in the matter. If your going to demand that I be open-minded, shouldn’t you be too?

    It’s a free country, right vicki?. If you don’t like seeing dead wolves (or anything else for that matter), don’t look. I’m not telling ANYONE how to live (I’m offended anyone could think otherwise from my post). I’m just asking people to afford me the same respect.

    Stop for just a minute and consider walking in someone else’s shoes. The world does not revolve around Wyoming, but at the same time, it doesn’t revolve around any of you either.

    It’s not the life you choose, it’s the life you live.

  112. avatar vicki says:

    Wyoming Joe,
    It is indeed a free country. That is the premise that everyone here bases their actions upon.
    You are entitled to your opinion, as we all are. No one here would be naive enough to dispute that. We just tend to disagree with what your opinion is.
    DBH actually has a very productive active life, and is very involved in preserving what can be preserved, environmentally, for future generations. Her early morning hours are evidence that, even those of us who don’t ranch, do indeed work our tail ends off.
    I do consider walking in your shoes. I am not in favor of ending ranching all together. But I don’t believe a hand full of ranchers is more important than the balance of an entire ecosystem.
    “It’s about a few of us anti’s have a say in the matter”, are you serious? Do you honestly think any of the current regulations on wolves in any of the three states in question was done on behalf of wolf advocates? You can’t really believe that wolf advocates wanted a predator zone, or delisting before a corridor for migration was established? Or that they would have supported delisting at all under the present conditions and regulations.
    Maybe you do? But that would speak volumes about the lack of understanding you have about what we want to accomplish.
    If you really do practice what you preach,support your free country quote- call up your governor, and remind him that the people of this free country-not just those in Wyoming- are equally as entitled to their opinion and input as anyone his well financed constituents are.

  113. avatar vicki says:

    p.s. don’t flatter yourself too much. the statements you made are pretty commonly presented, and then effectively argued here.

  114. Me and Wyoming Joe. I let you guys into the blog to share your views, but you need to also do some scanning of past arguments and discussions to see that most of the people who post here do not match many of your preconceptions — that they live in NYC, don’t know anything about the outdoors, hate hunting, and so on.

  115. avatar wyoming joe says:

    Sorry to rain on your parade………..the posts I’ve read in the recent past, as well as the blog in general, seem to be very one-sided. If I’m not welcome here, just say so.
    —–

    Joe,

    There is a dominant view here. I started my blog with a view. Other opinions are welcome. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

    The important fact I am pointing out is the most of the regular posters here have a lot of outdoor experience, they know a little or a lot about ranching, fishing, hunting. Many live in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming or other Western States. This is not an anti-hunting web site. There are, of course, those who don’t like hunting at all, but more likely hunting of certain kinds of animals. There is strong support for hunting as a fair chase of truly wild animals.

    A general hostility toward the political leadership of Wyoming, and to a lesser extent Montana and Idaho has emerged.

    The views of the Western Watersheds Project get promotion and a fair amount of support here. These are the facts.

    There is general support for wolf restoration because my web site began as a mere news repository of information about this issue, and it attracted people who were interested and liked to see wolves in Yellowstone and other places.

    Ralph Maughan

  116. avatar Catbestland says:

    Me and Wyoming Joe,

    I was born and raised on a livestock facility back east. When I moved out west, I worked for the largest rancher on the western slope of Colorado. I have been in the livestoick industry ALL of my life. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that western ranchers do not have it any worse than MOST people who operate their own businesses. In fact with all the hand outs they get, they have it better than most. The entire industry is based on avarice. They couldnlt have come into existence if they hadn’t stolen the land from Native Americans. They could not continue to exist if not for the exploiting public lands which don’t belong to them and receiving enormous amounts of welfare. They don’t provide any service to Americans that is worth the destruction of our ecosystems and wildlife. Wolves do far more for the Natural World than do ranchers. How can you imagine that people will see what ranchers are doing to OUR ecosystems and OUR wildlife and continue to put up with it??? And do you imagine that the re-extirpation of the wolf is going to save the ranching industry??? Of course not. Its days are numbered regardless. Ranching in the west simply does not make economic sense, wolves or no wolves. People from all over the country and the world are beginning to realize that the health of our ecosystems is worth far more than the tiny percentage of beef that comes out of those western states. We are no longer willing to lose species after species to accomodate a tiny percentage of the population. It just isn’t worth it.

  117. avatar Ryan says:

    “Wolves do far more for the Natural World than do ranchers”

    Really, you have to be kidding me. Much of the best wild county in the west in on private ranches. Much of the species preservation that happened in the west came directly from ranches. You tend to lump public land grazing in with private ranching which isn’t fair. As for wolves doing more good, the jury is still out on that with regards to private lands and non national park areas.

  118. avatar Jeff N. says:

    Wyoming Joe –

    I’m with you. You have the CANADIAN wolf to deal with up in your neck of the woods and we have the MEXICAN wolf down here in my parts. America was much better when all we had to deal with was the WHITE ANGLO wolf.

  119. avatar Catbestland says:

    No Ryan, I am not kidding. How can the “best wild country” exixt without all of its components? It is then not wild. The only species that ranchers preserve is “rancher preferred” species. And that is only until they start eating the ranchers hay stores. Then they are not so keen on preserving them. The jury is not out on the good that wolves do for the ecosystems. The best science shows that you cannot expect nature to operate efficiently without ALL its necessary parts. I am not speaking of private lands. Who cares if ranchers destroy their own land. It is the destruction of PUBLIC lands and wildlife that will not be tolerated.

  120. avatar Ryan says:

    CatsbestLand,
    The ecosystem hasn’t had all of its parts for over 100 years. And selectively adding back certain parts isn’t necessairly good for the whole ecosystem.

  121. avatar Catbestland says:

    Ryan,
    Ya gotta start somewhere. A keystone predator is the place to start. It is a proven fact that with the return of the wolf the Yellowstone ecosystem began to improve. The only thing that adding the invasive cattle species has done in insure that the ecosystem will be missing its vital parts.

  122. With the restoration of the wolf, all parts were back in terms of large mammals.

  123. avatar Me says:

    Why wasn’t the ecosystem out of whack during that 100 years wolves weren’t around? And someone said that there were ways to keep wolves away without killing them. Name one way that would remotley work. Just one. I never said ranching was the hardest job in the world either. Wolves just don’t help diddly shit.

  124. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    As hard as it is to resist to join in the fun and make some redneck jokes about all the ‘hicks’ up in wyoming it does nothing to depolarize the two opposing groups and find a common ground where the issue can be resolved for the long term.

    while i agree with the name-calling statement ~ being a complete hypocrite in that regard no-less. i would ask you to re-assess the assumption that finding common ground is possible.

    sometimes tension and controversy are good ~ especially when your interest is being railroaded under the guise of depolarization.

    wolves are being killed — polarization and controversy are not necessarily bad, especially with the political climate suggesting the majority in congress might want to avoid the flare.

    Much of the best wild [emphasis mine] county in the west in on private ranches.

    this makes no sense. if we consider the ecosystem, which accounts for more than “open space” – this just makes no sense at all.

  125. avatar Chuck says:

    Now all we need is the grizzly bear to be re-introduced to its native territory. Can you imagine the panic of a grizzly bear strolling through downtown Boise.

  126. avatar Ryan says:

    Ralph,
    There not in reality just glimpses of there former populations, buffalo are not back in any significant numbers across the west (a key prey species for wolves). Beaver numbers are not completely rebounded (a true keystone species).

    Catsbestland,

    Wolves are not a Keystone species. An Apex predator yes, keystone, no.

    Brian,
    Really? Lets see public ground that has been logged and heavily used by both private and public interests or private ground that is managed with land preservation in mind and has less human intervention. Go out and hike the national forest and then look go hike a private 20000 acre cattle ranch and see which one is in better shape ecologically.

  127. avatar Linda Hunter says:

    Chuck . . shshhhh. I have been hoping that one good thing could come out of the controversy over wolves would be that people would forget about bears for a while.

  128. avatar Catbestland says:

    Ryan,

    Where did you go to school? Let me guess, Wyoming? Wolves are most definitely a keystone predator. The term keystone indicates that its presense has a definite effect on its ecosystem and other species in it. Wolves most certainly fill that bill.

  129. avatar JEFF E says:

    Wyoming Joe, Me, Ryan et all,
    I posted the links stating that the majority of people that live in Wyoming favor(ed) reintroduction in addition to a very succinct paper on why public lands grazing is wrong for a verity of reasons and as yet none of you will address the facts presented therein, or if you have some information to back up your arguments, then trot them out. Otherwise all you state are opinion which is one of two things everyone has and more often than not one is highly indicative of the other. After all it is our opinions that shape us as someone once said.

  130. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    Really? Lets see public ground that has been logged and heavily used by both private and public interests or private ground that is managed with land preservation in mind and has less human intervention. Go out and hike the national forest and then look go hike a private 20000 acre cattle ranch and see which one is in better shape ecologically.

    ryan, this is a false choice – even if it generally were true. you’re taking the exception and projecting it as the rule ~ just as is always done with this argument. How about we look at the condition of the majority of private ranches against the condition of protected (i.e. no extractive/industry use) public land – or even the condition of the majority of public lands ?

    no ? for your argument to work – we’d have to look at the exception – i.e. the ranch that’s ‘consciously’ maintained. the best of the private against the worst of the public. that’s not a representative dichotomy.

    ranching is death on semi-arid – arid ecosystems. it’s not ecologically sustainable ~ even if it looks nice and is viable for a particular species

    please answer JEFF E

  131. avatar HAL 9000 says:

    Wyoming Joe and Me,

    1: I’m a hick. A college-educated hick who can use big, fancy words and wax lovingly about punk and modern rock bands such as Husker Du and the Smiths…but a hick nonetheless. My first love in music was Patsy (the goddess) Cline, and I’m rarely seen in public without a ball cap and belt buckle.

    2: I grew up and have lived my whole life in Colorado-Montana-Idaho-Wyoming. (Although I don’t consider Colorado to be part of the West any more. I usually make reference to it as “that suburb of California.”)

    3: I paid part of my way through college (where I learned all them big, fancy words and was introduced to the music of them whacky bands) by working summers on a ranch. True, it was a ranch in “that suburb of California,” but a ranch nonetheless.

    4: I hunt, have hunted since I was big enough to work the pump on my Benjamin air rifle, and plan to hunt until I fall over dead. (Or, maybe get eaten by a pack of super-sized CANADIAN wolves…eh?)

    5: Dead critter pictures don’t bother me.

    6: I support wolves, and think Wyoming’s current “management” (cough, cough) plan is FUBAR.

    Any questions?

  132. avatar Catbestland says:

    Ryan,

    This is from the US Forest Service website.

    http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A00D The Gray Wolf, being a keystone predator, is an integral component of the ecosystems to which it typically belongs. The wide range of habitats in which wolves can thrive reflects their adaptability as a species, and includes temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and grasslands.

    You are discredited by ignorant statements to the contrary. It shows that you have not put the least bit of effort into researching the topics you wish to argue. The fact that you cannot answer questions put forth like those from Jeff E. further demonstrate that you contend from a position of greed, not educated deduction.

  133. avatar Catbestland says:

    Ryan,
    This is from the US Forest Service website.
    http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A00D
    The Gray Wolf, being a keystone predator, is an integral component of the ecosystems to which it typically belongs. The wide range of habitats in which wolves can thrive reflects their adaptability as a species, and includes temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and grasslands.

    Please educate yourself at least partially to the facts before you make an argument.

  134. avatar dbaileyhill says:

    I do not know who to cite for this quote, but i think it is appropriate for many of the issues discussed on this blog.

    “Society is like a pot of soup. It needs to be stirred often to keep scum from forming on the top.”

  135. avatar JB says:

    Ryan said: “The ecosystem hasn’t had all of its parts for over 100 years. And selectively adding back certain parts isn’t necessairly good for the whole ecosystem.”

    Ralph responded: “With the restoration of the wolf, all parts were back in terms of large mammals.”

    Actually, the ecosystem hasn’t had all of its constituent parts in over 10,000 years. We’ve lost the American cheetah (Miracinonyx trumani), short-faced bear (Arctodus simus), American lion (Panthera atrox), Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), camel (Camelops hesternus), and woodland muskox (Bootheerium bombifrons) just to name a few! So those of you that think adding the wolf is one too many predators…well, give me a break.

    ps- I forgot the saber-toothed tiger!

  136. avatar JB says:

    Oh, and several species of native horses. The list of species that our ancestors helped to extinguish is long.

    Will you tell me again that we don’t have room for wolves? I never get tired of hearing it.

  137. avatar mlh says:

    I live in North Idaho right by I-90, you know the interstate that the wolves aren’t supposed to cross to go any farther north. Well someone forgot to tell the wolves, we’re seeing more and more wolves every year and they are starting to haver an impace on our deer and elk herds. Just last wee a friend of mine had their dog killed right in their front yard at the base of lookout pass by a pack of wolves, the same ppack that they watched kill a herd of 18 elk during the winter, eating some of the elk and leaving large portions of the elk they killed uneaten. I’m an elk hunter and have raised and was raised on elk meat and venison, while I’m not thrilled about having wolves in my elk and deer country I realize that they are here now and need to be managed like every other big game animal. I kind of like hearing and seeing them however there needs to be a balance. Idaho was supposed to maintain at least 15 packs in the state and we are well over that quota. I also think that posting pictures on the net of dead wolves is adding way to much fuel to the fire. I’m not the kind of hunter that ties the game to the front of my truck to prove success, the game deserves more respect and people that don’t want to see it shouldn’t have to, come on sportsmen class it up a little bit and take the high road, there’s enough of the billy bobs out there already.

    MLH,

    No doubt wolves are crossing I-90. Someone in the Panhandle is clearly spreading the misinformation that wolves were not supposed to do this. This is entirely wrong from a legal standpoint. In fact any wolves north of I-90 were not legally part of the experimental population, and they had special legal protection as fully endangered species until recently.

    If the lawsuits against delisting are successful, those north of I-90 and in NW Montana will regain extra protection compared to those to the south. Ralph Maughan

  138. avatar Ryan says:

    Jeff E,
    I read your link, very interesting. I would have like to have seen the lines of questioning that was pro reintroduction. When reintroduction was specifically broached in FWS documents it was about a 50/50 split infavor reintroduction to yellowstone within WY residents.

    Now if you read the rest of the article you could also note..
    Congratualtions on the Hollow victory!

    “Over three-quarters (78%) of respondents overall strongly or moderately supported a
    management plan in which wolves were maintained within the national parks and
    designated wilderness areas in northwest Wyoming, but where wolves were discouraged
    from expanding their ranges to other parts of the state.”

    “A majority (78%) of respondents overall strongly or moderately supported efforts to
    return the management responsibility for Wyoming’s wolves to the Wyoming Game
    and Fish Commission (WGFC) and the WGFD.
    Most respondents overall (55%) strongly supported returning”

    “In regard to removing wolves under various scenarios, the strongest support for
    removing wolves was when a wolf or wolf pack had killed livestock or pets, and the least
    support (although still over two-thirds of respondents supported removal) was for
    proactively removing a wolf that had not yet become a problem.
    From most support to least support, these are the following scenarios for removing a wolf:
    • Removing a wolf or wolf pack that had killed livestock or pets (87% support).
    • Removing the wolves from natural winter ranges if it was determined they were having a
    negative impact on game species (78% support).
    • Removing the wolves from feed grounds if they were negatively impacting elk or moose
    (77% support).
    • Proactively removing a wolf or wolf pack before they became a problem (69% support).”

    CatsBestland,
    Depends on what group you belong too whether or not one would consider wolves a keystone species. I guess by definition they are because of there effect in yellowstone, outside of the park they will not function as one though. But by the same margin, some biologists don not consider bison a Keystone species, but in there peak they most certainly were.

    JB,

    If you read my next post..
    “There not in reality just glimpses of there former populations, buffalo are not back in any significant numbers across the west (a key prey species for wolves). Beaver numbers are not completely rebounded either”

    Brian,
    I have been on both sides of the fence.. Most of the public land I have been on is trashed in comparison with the many private ranches I have been on. Granted the majority of my time on public lands has been in oregon, washington, and northern idaho. No matter where you look the Public is in worse condition than the private. (granted there are exceptions I.E nationa parks and wilderness areas)

  139. avatar Ryan says:

    Jeff E,
    Quote me one thread where I have ever posted being pro cattle leases on public land that is not fully encapsultated by private.

  140. Hello,
    Wow! Hey Wy Joe . I noticed you where writing an ad for touristism in wy. I think the point is some of our fellow statesmen “snowmoblie” these great creatures to death then get their pic in the local paper as if they did the world a favor. What cowards! Now what will they do with the snow almost gone. Oh thats right 4 wheelers. Once again COWARDS!

  141. avatar Nathan says:

    Found another photo…not as graphic but disturbing none the less that there pelts are being auctioned off on ebay.
    Its from Montana, makes you wonder the legalities of the kill , has there been a season on wolves yet?
    Hope it doesn’t sell.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Prime-XL-Canadian-Timber-Wolf-Pelt-Furs-Black-Powder_W0QQitemZ120254924386QQihZ002QQcategoryZ29463QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

    I have heard from a usually reliable source that the states are now selling the pelts of the wolves they “control.Ralph Maughan

  142. avatar JB says:

    Ryan,

    You’re missing my point; we (human beings) have already eliminated at least 4 large predators (and a number of ungulates) from the Yellowstone ecosystem. The idea that the reintroduction of wolves is going to be the straw that broke the camels back with regards to elk–which seems to be the newest argument I’m hearing–just doesn’t pass muster.

    We’re not talking about the introduction of some exotic species–we’re talking about the return of a native species that all native ungulates in this region co-evolved with. To suggest that human beings have to control wolves or they will eat all the elk in the region defies logic and thousands of years of evolution. The only reason to control wolves are (1) to protect livestock (which most here agree is a bad idea) (2) to protect people from wolves that have become sick or habituated (a very good idea) or (3) to ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE ungulate populations for a few greedy, lazy cabela queens.

  143. avatar Catbestland says:

    Ryan,

    It does NOT depend on what group you belong too. It depends on whether you are educated to the facts or not. Wolves are, have been and always will be considered a keystone predator. Every book I have every read, every lecture I have ever attended, every Wildlife Agent I have ever spoken with all agree. Please provide documentation to the contrary.

  144. avatar Save bears says:

    Nathan,

    There are several instances where companies can posses legal wolf hides, I am familiar with this company and their wolf hides come from either Canada or Alaska, where it is legal to hunt wolves..

    And don’t take my statements as endorsement or condemnation, just information.

  145. avatar JEFF E says:

    Ryan,
    Congratulations on finally doing some meaningful research reading. As per you original statement that the majority of Wyoming residents did not want wolves was the point of the exercise. I do not believe we were talking about the management of them, or in this case mismanagement, after that fact however.
    As for the grazing issue If you notice I was not addressing my comment to you alone so as they say, take what applies to you and and leave the rest.

  146. avatar Heather says:

    “I have heard from a usually reliable source that the states are now selling the pelts of the wolves they “control.” Ralph Maughan”

    I attended a Audubon Society meeting about 1 1/2 yrs ago, to which we were given a presentation by Liz Bradley, one of our MT wolf control coordinators about the upcomming wolf plan/delisting. She mentioned then that the FWS would use the pelts, therefore it would be beneficial because of using a “renewable resource” ie control and “recycling” the pelt. So, it has been their plan all along.
    I found that sick and wrong.

  147. I was in the Upper Green last night what beauty. I must have seen 150 elk, 300 antlope,and 10 Moose (I know :))!
    I did see a one year old moose dead on the side of the road. Stupid Moose how dare he walk in the road and have someone come barreling through here and hit him and wreck him “rig”. Please explain to me First, were in the world is the fire! The road ends for the love of God! The good new is the trails are almost gone (less snowmoblies the wolves can get a break). Now lets just pray that spring is long and wet (fourwheelers and trucks get stuck and they hate that!!).But for the rest looking for a beautiful drive. My Mom couldnt get over the beauty and she is from Sun Valley. Maybe I dont want to move after all?

  148. avatar Heather says:

    wow I’ve finally looked at these pics – wasn’t able to until now. Showing the fangs on one?? what is the point of that?? big bad wolf but now I am dead? These are animals doing what they do, like us. just predators like any other… I cant fathom the lack of understanding!

  149. avatar vicki says:

    I wondered what the point of showing the fang was too. I think it is sort of ironic. If they were trying to show a ‘big bad wolf’, they failed. The fang does not look that huge or demonic, it is hardly frightening. In fact, the state in which they have depicted these wolves makes them seem anything but intimidating.

  150. avatar Heather says:

    Yes, I agree Vicki, ie, the state they are depicted. I am surprised their heads aren’t mounted or propped up with sticks. I really cannot get the picture out of my mind of how they were killed. I’m sure it involved running them down, or something akin to torture. I can only imagine how these people treat their own dogs…abuse all around.

  151. A house cat looks more fearsome when it yawns, and it is just a purely a carnivore.

    In fact, unlike wolves, domestic cats, full of ground up beef, poultry, lamb, etc., when allowed outside, do hunt for sport. . . much like that segment of human hunters who so loudly complain about wild carnivores.

  152. avatar Nathan Hobbs says:

    Here is how a wolf is supposed to be seen in the wild.
    ( it is one of my images from last fall in Yellowstone)
    http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/art/Grey-Wolf-of-Yellowstone-b-84677852
    Not on blood stained cement with fingers prodding at its fangs.

  153. avatar Heather says:

    Thank you Nathan!

    Is it competition then? Who is the “best carnivore”? Isn’t that acting like a caveman???

    On a side note, I always enjoy looking at my dogs “fangs”. Good tools…they are.

  154. avatar vicki says:

    Ralph makes a good point. Domestic cats do toy with their prey. I had a cat who used to kill mice and put their heads on my pillow! (It was an act of loyalty-gross none the less.)
    But for what would sometimes be hours, she’d play with them first.
    I can’t think of any other animals that do that, except domesticated animals, and humans. Yet we operate under the assumption that we are far more evolved.

  155. avatar Catbestland says:

    It’s a disease called testosterone poisoning.

  156. avatar vicki says:

    Cat,
    That is hillarious! We shouldn’t testosteronebash though, it does come in handy on occasion-like when we need to be drug back to our cave.
    Just kiddin fellas!

  157. avatar wyoming joe says:

    Jeff E,

    I gleaned the same conclusion from the study you reference. By ‘majority of Wyoming residents’, you mean 51%. And technically, you’re correct. But in reallity, that study could be redone with minor changes, and give completely different results, much like a political poll.

    Ryan has it nailed…..we (Wyomingites) support state-sponsored management of wolves vs. federally-sponsored. The reasons are many. Paramount, for me anyway, is trust. I don’t trust the Fed’s. As Ryan accurately pointed-out, much more than your 51% majority support our Governor, our Game & Fish Dept., and dual classification. The management plan we have in place is working for us, and we WANT it.

    At one time, back when we thought we had a say in how we live our lives (most of us have come to accept that we don’t, which could explain the results of the study you quote), the ‘majority’ of us were against the reintroduction. We’ve had a philospohy crammed down our throats by the stiff-armed Feds. (again, I don’t trust them). In a different situation, one that any of you might find yourselves in, you would feel the same animosity towards the administration responsible for the cramming.

    And for the record, I’m not a fan of grazing on NF land. If ranchers were not allowed to graze on NF land, they would be required to graze more private. And I would be even more against a mandate that protects an animal that threatens my livelihood on my own, deeded land. Wolves should not be protected on private lands, as they currently are, unless the landowner sets the individual mandate.

    And lastly, I’m surprised all you lifelong ‘ranchers’ are having such a hard time with these pictures. ALL ranchers I know and respect, deal with death on a regular basis. Would you have the same impathy for a picture of a wolf-killed calf?

  158. avatar Save bears says:

    Wyoming Joe,

    I have no problem with the pictures at all, just as I don’t have a problem of a wolf killed calf, death is part of the eco-system, what I do have a problem with is flawed wildlife management, as a wildlife biologist, I find it asinine to have a shoot on sight “Management” style, and that goes for coyotes, wolves, badgers, rabbits, prairie dogs, etc.. I am a firm believer in hunting based on biology, and this is not what Wyoming is doing.

  159. Joe,

    The offensiveness of the photos to me are the lined up dead wolves, just like it was 1890.

    I’m comfortable with dead animals in general having been the person to dispose of (generally incinerate them) at Utah State University veterinary science lab for two summers when I was a student there. Then of course there have been all those years in the mountains and on the range since.

    To me the lines of dead wolves, signify not death, but failure to learn in the course of a century.

    A dead cow calf is of no consequence to me because they are so common (although the first kind of beef I stopped eating was veal). I’ll post a photo if you want.

  160. avatar Catbestland says:

    Joe,

    You said, “The management plan we have in place is working for us and we WANT it.” One problem; the wolves you are managing (slaughtering) belong to ALL of us and we don’t WANT it. Do we have the right to polute the air you breath or the water you drink from activity in another state??? NO!!!

    “In a different situation, one that you might find yourselves in, you would feel the same animosity towards the administration responsible for the cramming. Would that be similar to the situation Native Americans found themselves in when their land was stolen from them by and for ranchers???

    I don’t particularly want to see photos of dead calves on slaughterhouse floors either, but again humans, not wolves are responsible for that scene too. I get so sick of ranchers trying to feign sorrow for the horrible death of their stock from wolf predation. There simply is nothing more horrifying than what animals must suffer when forced to endure the process of industrialized slaughter.

  161. avatar Catbestland says:

    But at least it looks like the guys in the picture have learned to walk upright. They must have started putting the beer on the top shelf at Pigly Wigly.

  162. avatar Save bears says:

    Ya Cat,

    That is the SURE way to win over your enemies, works every time! Just look at what it has done for the President!

  163. avatar Catbestland says:

    Sorry,

    I shouldn’t have said that but I get so sick of ranchers touting that what wolves do is so vicious when it is what nature designed them to do. And in fact everything that ranchers do is contrary to Nature.

  164. avatar vicki says:

    Wyoming Joe,
    Would I have empathy if it were a calf. No.
    Why I would not have empathy is more important. I would not because, calves are a non-native species. They are in fact cultivated and aided by humans in every way. Their death as the result of depredation would be more natural than a wolf being ran down on snowmobiles and then (as it appears with atleast one of these wolves) gut shot.
    These photos are disturbing because of the manner and policy which made their deaths possible, in my opinion. And they are disturbing because of the ignorance of those who killed them.
    I would be more empathetic of a cow if there were men running around on snow mobiles harassing and then shooting your cattle. That would disturb me. Not because I would feel sorry for the cow, but because of the way they died, and the mentality it takes to kill them that way.
    As far as support of your governor, and statistical support of any politician….well that can all be swung to satisfy his political objective. He is a pompus wind bag. He is rude and offensive to nearly every person outside of the ranchers who live in Wyoming.
    Do I feel for the ranchers who have had a signifigant financial hardship placed upon them? Not if they graze public land. As far as the others…show me one. Name one rancher who has been financially compromised? I doubt you could, because at present, losses attributed to wolves are paid at a higher market value than they could have sold the beef for. If they are effected, they should really take a business class or two. They are most likley in trouble because of a lack of business apptitude, not because of the loss of a few cows.
    No one will ever completely agree on the politics involved here. But some will agree on very key issues.
    1. cattle do not belong on public land
    2. wolves should not be managed as vermin, but if and when management becomes necessary they should be a trophy hunt and charged for accordingly
    3. depredation has to be first diverted, and when left with no alternative dealt with
    4. wolves are not stable enough ouside of YNP to be delisted AT THIS TIME
    5. a corridor needs to be established for dipersal to other states (lack of one is a key factor in the demise of predators that follow migration of ungulates)
    6. science needs to be a bigger part of management policies than emotion

    I also agree with the earlier post that ranchers are no more deserving of consideration than any other economic class of workers. I don’t get hand outs and I actually save human lives for a living-and am very under paid due to government mismanegment of social resources. (I personally think they should stop subsidizing ranchers and start helping the elderly population in this country.)
    Ranchers are given subsidies and enabled by our government at every turn. If they had to stand on their own two feet, without that aid…there would be a hell of a lot fewer ranchers to argue this with.
    No one gives me money to subsidize my lifestyle. Ranchers have a choice, and they choose to live the way they do. They are no different than the thousands of people on food stamps and welfare. SOme need a hand up, others enjoy the hand outs.
    Ranchers can fault no one but themselves for the way people view their choice and it’s effect on the environment. And they will be able to fault no one else when public grazing is ended and many of them have to move into this century and find other gainful employment…without hand outs from taxpayers.
    Funny though, ranchers stand on their soap box of political and civil rights, claiming their way of life entitles them to determine the fate of wolves, bears, elk and every other animal that walks public lands. They say the have a right to voice their opinion and be represented.
    Yet they spit in the face of every other American who disagrees with how they abuse land and resources for excercising the very same rights as they do. Are those people less entitled to be heard and represented? I think not.
    Maybe ranchers need to take a step back and realize that an entire nation of citizens provides them with the civil liberties they so enjoy. All of those citizens matter just as much.
    Frankly, ranchers need to realize they have no more right to control the government or policies in ANY state as any other person does. They should realize that the same people they bash (liberals, enviros, greenies) are the people who fight to make sure every citizen has a right to their opinion-even if it is wrong in the opinion of most intellegent citizens.
    I am so tired of the poor ranchers crap. Many other people are faced with policies that effect their way of life every day. (Farmers who employ immigrants can’t afford to any more. Truckers can only drive a certain number of hours per day. Doctors are required to maintain a huge amount of pricey insurance incase they get sued.)They just demand a lot less sympathy and get fewer dollars thrown at their feet.

    No system is perfect, I accept that. But the policy that Wyoming has is scientifically without merrit. It is in the best interest of one group and one group only…ranchers. And, it is wrong.

  165. avatar Jay says:

    Joe, maybe it’s just that you don’t believe in democracy. The Endangered Species Act was written by democratically elected politicians, to be implemented for the protection of species that all Americans are entitled to be able to appreciate, whether they live in Wyoming or not. If you don’t like it, move to Cuba or China and see if you like it better there. If Americans want wolves on THEIR public lands, than that’s the way it’s going to be, period.

  166. avatar dbaileyhill says:

    Vicki, very well written.

  167. avatar wyoming joe says:

    The system we are currently forced to live with was mandated by the interest of one group, namely wolf-lovers. If we had any say what-so-ever, we woild have been ‘manageing’ wolves alot sooner.

    Our current situation is a compromise by all. You here want no management; the people of the west want much more. ‘Scientific’? Do you really think that we could be where we are today without much ‘scientific’ input. This isn’t about science, it’s about not having it your way. We don’t have it our way, either.

    As for the pictures, are you telling me that, if the hunters had a Trophy Game Tag in their pocket, you would be alright with them? Most of you will never accept the thought of a dead wolf, unless it is of old age.

  168. avatar Save bears says:

    Joe,

    You can’t read real good can you? Many of those posting one these pages are IN the West, My Wife’s family is born, bread and raised in Montana ranch country, since the late 1800’s. I am a biologist by trade, and feel that it is Wyoming’s fault that it took so long to get the wolves delisted, and it will probably be Wyoming’s fault if they are put back on the list under Federal management…I am the people of the west and feel that the Wyoming plan, has no merit in the science I was trained in and got my degree in! I didn’t agree with my own states plan, and it is touted as the best of the three, hence I no longer work with any agencies, which allows me a very objective opinion on the various management plans..

    Shoot on sight, is NOT sound wildlife management, period, end of story, and there are many studies to back up my position..and I don’t care what species you are talking about…

    Dead animals, don’t bother me one bit, I see plenty of them every single year, from various causes, but to shoot it BECAUSE it is what it is, has no basis in science at all.

  169. avatar vicki says:

    I don’t agree. I think most of us are quite aware that wolves will eventually be hunted. Some may never like seeing pictures of it. But I think they are really aware that it is going to happen.
    Again, you saythis is a compromise. I again say that is inaccurate. This is Wyoming’s plan to limit wolves to the borders of YNP.. It is a systematic attempt to do just that, by lethal means.
    Yet Wyoming continues it’s campaign to lure tourists. (Ironic since the government is very anti-anyone not from the state of WY, and the people who oppose wolves tell everyone else to stay away) Wyoming tourism pitch deliberately misleads the public, IMHO, into thinking that wildlife is running free and unmolested in your state. They lead people to believe thatthe approach they take to management is minimalistic and humane. Wrong again. It is a lie, an out and out intentional ploy to pull the wool over the eyes of people who would spend money in the state in hopes of seeing iwld life being-hold your breath now-WILD>

    In my opinion, a scientific plan would have considerstion for mating and nursing. It would have a cap on hunting tags, based on accurate counts. It would have a number of wolf tags per area, based on the number of elk, and other prey species, that the wolves could utilize to survive. It would charge an appropriate fee for tags, so that more money could be diverted back to conservation. It would have a lot more substainence than the shoot on sight, make them non-existant outside the park plan that is currently in place.

    I don’t have it my way, because the current plan lacks in many ways. You don’t have yours because there are actually wolves. So, on that we agree.
    But please, don’t say it is a compromise on your behalf. It was all that could legally be done to exterminate wolves in Wyoming entirely. Otherwise, you (meaning anti-wolf people) would have done even more to kill them all off.

  170. avatar wyoming joe says:

    Jay,

    I give you the same choice. Don’t like the system, move.

    No one here is happy with what we have. We want more, all of you want less. And, I ‘hear’ alot of emotion in the posts I read here, so don’t lecture me on policy based on emotion.

  171. avatar Ryan says:

    Viki,

    Here is an interesting read for you. Just think about it when your cute little cats bringing you dead animals for presents.
    http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/songbrd.html

    Also the reason tag prices are so low, is that because if they were high, not many would buy them because they are inherantly hard to hunt. Cougar tags used to be 60.00 and on a draw system in oregon. Now they are 6.50 and OTC because of they generally fall into a incidental category now.

  172. avatar Catbestland says:

    Joe,

    It is clear from reading yours and other anit-wolfer post that it is not the fact that the wolf takes some livestock that urks you most. Those numbers are insignificant and their value is reimbursed to the owner. Rather, it is the fact that others, outsiders, are telling you what to do and you can’t stand that. The wolf represents that outside interference. Ask yourself. Is destroying an entire species worth having to put up with a little outside interference? There is no way that you are going to escape government interference of some sort. We all have to put up with it. The difference is that most of us are not willing to destroy and entire species and throw the balance of ecosystems off to make a point against the government. If the government isn’t in your face about wolves, they will be about something, get used to it. Join the rest of the country.

  173. avatar Jay says:

    Well you didn’t seem to understand my point, Joe, so let me re-explain it to you. Back in the sixties/early seventies, the ESA was written by, voted for, and signed into law democratically, by congressman, senators, and a president that were voted into office for Americans, by Americans. It was the democratic system that put wolves in place, and I’m perfectly fine with the system. It sounds like you’re the one with the problem with the system as evidenced by all your whining, so again, if you don’t like it, fine someplace better.

  174. avatar vicki says:

    Ryan,
    My cat left the house exactly twice. Once to get declawed and once to get put to sleep. I had her for nearly twenty years. The only thing she ever killed were field mice that came into the house.
    I respect what you showed me though. Please know, I have no poison in my back yard. I do have a dry bog which uses less water. I also have trees. Several in fact, full of birds. I walked around a local bird refuge a few weekends ago. I saw some amazing owls and some very shy wood ducks. It was awesome.
    I’ll pass your link on.
    As far as the price of tags, I don’t think your arguement stands true. People pay a high price to hunt moose and big horn.
    As far as calling them a difficult hunt, I hope they become one. However, you need only look at the number of wolves killed in the last month or so to see that is surely not the case.

  175. avatar Catbestland says:

    Ryan and Joe,

    I well know how hard it is to admit that a lifestyle that seems so wholesome can be ethically wrong. I grew up in the Thoroughbred horse racing industry. I cut my teeth on it. At the time, there just didn’t seem to be a better way of life than sitting atop a guided runaway keg of dynamite in an early morning workout. Until they don’t come back from the track. Then you begin to realize that there is something wrong with an industry that causes so much pain and waste. Testament of this, is the sad incident with the filly Eight Bells at the Derby on Saturday. It happens alot, especially to fillies and I’ve changed my views on the sport even though it can be lucrative. I no longer participate.

    The same is true of the western beef industry. It seems so wholesome on the outside but upon examination, there is so much cruelty, abuse of the Natural World, and destruction of wildlife and wildlife habitat that it cannot be considered anything but unethical on so many levels. At some point one has to realize that the cost is too great to our wildlife and wild places to continue ranching on western public lands. If ranchers find that they can’t make the change to a less destructive means of living, perhaps they should consider moving their operations to areas that are more suited to the industry. Sometimes you just have to make the dicision to do what is right. It is not right to destroy wild places and wildlife, including wolves to support one interest.

  176. avatar wyoming joe says:

    For such an educated bunch, I’m dissappointed (but not surprised) in the misinterpretations I’m seeing:

    Jay,

    Wolves on public land, exclusively? You bet! That would be a great improvement over what we have now. In fact, that’s all I’m asking for, really. But somehow, I suspect that’s not the true intent. Vicki listed something about ‘corridor…..dipersal to other states………..migration of ungulates’ as a key fault to the current plan.

    Save Bears,

    There are many, many wildlife biologists employed by the Wyoming Game & Fish Department that would ask how the coyote, jackrabbit, prairie dog, fox, badger, porcupine, skunk numbers in Wyoming have been maintained for years, with just such a management plan. Might they know more than you?

    Vicki,

    You must not fully understand the current Trophy Game boundary. In addition to YNP, GTNP, JDRMP, the TG area includes all wilderness surrounding the NP’s, and NF, BLM, AND PRIVATE land extending east to the Belfry Hwy, south along the Meeteetse Hwy to Meeteetse, south along the Wood river, over the Owl Creek Mts. to the Wind River Indian Reservation, west to Dubois, south along the Reservation Boundary to the Wind River Divide, west to Pinedale, west along the Hoback Canyon to Hoback Junction, north to Jackson, west to the Idaho line (approximately 1/8 of the entire state). All wolves in this 2.5 million acre zone, of which a surprising percentage includes private land, require a TG tag, with set quotas (minimal numbers, based on ALL forms of mortality, by the way). All wolves outside this zone (the remaining 7/8 of the state) are considered predators. Now you’re educated.

    Wild, Vicki? Have you been to the outdoors in the GY area lately? Are you saying I shouldn’t worry about my kids when we’re ‘out’ in the woods? It’s silly of me to believe grizzlies are a danger for my family? I’ve adjusted our outings to minimize the chance of a bear encouter for nothing? Get real. If you can’t find any ‘wild’ in Wyoming, you’re lazier than the Cabelas queens.

    We haven’t compromised? Are you out of your mind? Compromise is generally a mutual agreement between two groups, to voluntarily meet somewhere in the middle. We have not been allowed to volunteer anything. We have been completely mandated to.

    Cat,

    Ranchers are NOT completely reimbursed for predation. The criteria for reimbursement are very stringent, including the wildlife groups that have ponied-up dollars to help smooth conflicts between ranchers and wolf-lovers. This is how it works……..the rancher must witness the act of predation, inform the authorities immediately, and hope they show up before the evidence has been ‘disturbed’. In most cases, the authourities have more important things to do, and show up to investigate several days later. The case then is determined to be unconclusive……no money paid to the rancher, who has just lost revenue.

    Folks, the original criteria for a fully recovered wolf population for the three-state region was 300. To date, 1500 wolves have been confirmed in an area much larger than the origanal recovery area. Wolf population increases an average of 24% per year. And your unsatisfied?

  177. avatar JEFF E says:

    Wyoming Joe,
    The original criteria for a recovered population was a MINUMUM of 300, and that number was arrived at as an appeasement to the livestock industry.
    The reason that it has grown far more that that is because of the state of Wyoming not producing a management plan consistent with ESA guidelines.
    All other predators that you mentioned are also managed with the overriding philosophy of the live stock industry, to wit, if it eats my cows, even if they are already dead, or eats what my cows eat then we need to get rid of it, or if we can’t get rid of it, then marginalize it to minimum numbers possible
    As far as reimbursement for losses in addition to what they get from private non -profit groups, and/or states, as a business they claim operating losses above and beyond. So cry me a river.
    As far as the ”trophy zone” you should research your own game statutes’ wherein you will find the little livestock life saver where any animal any where in the state can be classified and hunted under the same statutes that govern predators. So much for all the politically correct spin.
    Now your educated.

  178. avatar Catbestland says:

    Wyoming Joe,

    Ranchers do NOT have to witness the act of predation. The kill simply has to be confirmed as a wolf kill usually by the rancher friendly Wildlife Services biologists or inspector. Defenders has been very generous towards ranchers in questionable cases. And there have been abuses by ranchers claiming predation when wolves were baited with unwanted or unmarketable stock. But we pay for the livestock anyway and continue to put up with the whining.

  179. avatar Save bears says:

    Joe Said:

    “Save Bears”
    There are many, many wildlife biologists employed by the Wyoming Game & Fish Department that would ask how the coyote, jackrabbit, prairie dog, fox, badger, porcupine, skunk numbers in Wyoming have been maintained for years, with just such a management plan. Might they know more than you?

    Now that is funny, as my first job in the biology field was in fact with the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept, I worked with Deni Hammer, and quite a few others in the Dept, then I moved and work with Washington State Game and Fish, and the last job I had was with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and received many awards as well as accolades from my peers..The ONLY reason, I no longer work with the game depts, is because I WOULD not bow to the political pressure and the bullshit of “not rocking the boat” I would rather be broke and happy, that forward a false agenda when it concerns science..

    Perhaps, you are NOT the one that knows as much as you think Joe, it is quite obvious, you don’t based on your few posts..

  180. avatar Jay says:

    What it boils down to is you, Joe, hate democracy!! You hate America and everything it stands for…you probably refuse to wear a flag lapel pin!

  181. avatar Layton says:

    Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy,

    “The original criteria for a recovered population was a MINUMUM of 300, and that number was arrived at as an appeasement to the livestock industry.
    The reason that it has grown far more that that is because of the state of Wyoming not producing a management plan consistent with ESA guidelines.”

    It’s been a long time since you and I really tangled, but it seems that you are being a little less than consistent with one of the arguments that we used to engage in quite regularly.

    When you and I used to talk about this you consistently told me the part about “The original criteria for a recovered population was a MINUMUM of 300” — now it seems that you have embellished the tale a bit. “appeasing the livestock industry” and blaming Wyoming’s late submission of a “consistent” management plan are new.

    Is that REALLY what you are touting as the reason for the increased population requirements?? Or is the REAL reason for the newer, higher numbers just because you don’t want ANY wolves killed??

    I’ve been away from the ‘puter and the internet for a couple of weeks — did any of you folks miss me ?? 8^) — and I notice a couple of things — first, the filing of the suit against the delisting, predicted for several years by the “anti” crowd — now how did they know that would happen?? Then, gasp, the predicted “slaughter of the canids” — seems that that has kind of failed miserably, something around 2000 wolves out there and maybe 20 killed that weren’t planned as control measures — or is it even that many??

    As I was driving thru northern Calif. and eastern Oregon today I noticed several cattle drives going on — was wondering if today was “turnout” day on some of the grazing allotments. Then I started looking at the land that those cows “devastate” every year — looked pretty good to me, guess I can’t recognize ruination when I see it.

    It started me thinking about some of the comments on this website about our public lands and the grazing allotments on them. If they are so wrong, how come “we the people” haven’t changed the way they are handled?? If they are so cheap they amount to a subsidy why don’t “we the people” raise the price? Or is it that just a very small part of “we the people” see it that way??

    Could it be that WWP (as an example) trying to buy out these leases to just allow the land involved to sit idle and, at the same time try to destroy a way of life (ranching) is something that a majority of “we the people” in this part of the country see as a complete waste?? Maybe some of “we the people” think the grass could be better utilized by grazing it than letting it grow and burn?

    Just musings from a long drive thru the desert.

  182. Hey Wy Joe,
    Take that mouse out of your pocket. I am one of your “we’s”and I dislike it when someone anyone bunches me in a group and then speaks for me! I hate what people like you spit out and the lies that polute the minds of the young or unknown. And to set the record straight it IS uncalled for the public display of the wolves in Pinedale (but concerned the source). I have see enough death on the human level to choke a man like you. I have had babies, women and crying grown men die in front of me and not ONCE as it ever been OK. You sir are not wired right. Nothing in the pictures above should be Ok or not make anyone whince. Shame on you. This comment has nothing to do with ranching or hunting just God forsaken humankind. Unforunetly, it doesnt come it a shot. I do believe you are missing it in your DNA! period

  183. avatar Catbestland says:

    Joe,
    Albert Einstein said, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. “

  184. avatar Linda Hunter says:

    “It’s silly of me to believe grizzlies are a danger for my family ”

    Just stay at home on the computer where nothing will get you, not bears, cougars or wolves.

  185. avatar Catbestland says:

    I am ever so much more encouraged with the integrity of the lawsuits filed, given the standard of awareness on the issues of those with whom we are battle joined.

  186. Ok, I cleaned up the last bunch of comments (deleted), and this thread is closed.

    Webmaster

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: