Will we now see a quick bloodbath in Idaho?

Some stories from other media are now showing up.

3/6 Feds to proceed with wolf delisting. Wyoming wolves will remain listed under the ESA. By Jason Kauffman. Idaho Mountain Express.

3/6 Salazar OKs wolf removal from endangered list. AP. By Matthew Brown and John Flesher.

3/6 Salazar Approves Wolf Delisting. “The Interior Department has decided not to punish Idaho and Montana for lack of cooperation received from Wyoming.”  By Bill Schneider. New West.
3/7. State [Wyoming] still out on wolves. By Cory Hatch.
Jackson Hole Daily.
– – – – – – – – – – – –

NEWS RELEASE

March 6, 2009
Contact: Hugh Vickery, (202) 501-4633
Ed Bangs 406-449-5225, x204
Sharon Rose 303-236-4580
Laura Ragan 612- 713-5157
Georgia Parham 812-334-4261, x203

Secretary Salazar Affirms Decision to Delist Gray Wolves in Western Great Lakes, Portion of Northern Rockies

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today affirmed the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove gray wolves from the list of threatened and endangered species in the western Great Lakes and the Northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho and Montana and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Wolves will remain a protected species in Wyoming.

“The recovery of the gray wolf throughout significant portions of its historic range is one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act,” Salazar said. “When it was listed as endangered in 1974, the wolf had almost disappeared from the continental United States. Today, we have more than 5,500 wolves, including more than 1,600 in the Rockies.”

“The successful recovery of this species is a stunning example of how the Act can work to keep imperiled animals from sliding into extinction,” he said. “The recovery of the wolf has not been the work of the federal government alone. It has been a long and active partnership including states, tribes, landowners, academic researchers, sportsmen and other conservation groups, the Canadian government and many other partners.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service originally announced the decision to delist the wolf in January, but the new administration decided to review the decision as part of an overall regulatory review when it came into office. The Service will now send the delisting regulation to the Federal Register for publication.

The Service decided to delist the wolf in Idaho and Montana because they have approved state wolf management plans in place that will ensure the conservation of the species in the future.

At the same time, the Service determined wolves in Wyoming would still be listed under the Act because Wyoming’s current state law and wolf management plan are not sufficient to conserve its portion of northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.

Gray wolves were previously listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota where they were listed as threatened. The Service oversees three separate recovery programs for the gray wolf; each has its own recovery plan and recovery goals based on the unique characteristics of wolf populations in each geographic area.

Wolves in other parts of the 48 states, including the Southwest wolf population, remain endangered and are not affected by the actions taken today.

###

Fact Sheet: Northern Rocky Mountain wolves

The northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment includes all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah. The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is at least 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for at least three consecutive years, a goal that was attained in 2002 and has been exceeded every year since. There are currently about 95 breeding pairs and 1,600 wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

The Service believes that with approved state management plans in place in Montana and Idaho, all threats to the wolf population will be sufficiently reduced or eliminated in those states. Montana and Idaho will always manage for more than 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves per state and their target population level is about 400 wolves in Montana and 500 in Idaho.

As a result of a Montana United States District Court decision on July 18, 2008, the Service reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations. While the Service has approved wolf management plans in Montana and Idaho, it has determined that Wyoming’s state law and wolf management plan are not sufficient to conserve Wyoming’s portion of a recovered northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.  Therefore, even though Wyoming is included in the northern Rocky Mountain District Population Segment, the subpopulation of gray wolves in Wyoming is not being removed from protection of the Endangered Species Act.

Continued management under the Endangered Species Act by the Service will ensure that wolves in Wyoming will be conserved. Acting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Rowan Gould said the Service will continue to work with the State of Wyoming in developing its state regulatory framework so that the state can continue to maintain its share of a recovered northern Rocky Mountain population. Once adequate state regulatory mechanisms are in place, the Service could propose removing the Act’s protections for wolves in Wyoming.  National parks and the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming already have adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to conserve wolves. However, at this time, wolves will remain protected as a nonessential, experimental population under the ESA throughout the state, including within the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation and national park and refuge units.

Fact Sheet:  Western Great Lakes

The Service’s delisting of the gray wolf also applies to gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment. As the result of another legal ruling from the Washington D.C. United States District Court on September 29, 2008, the Service reexamined its legal authorization to simultaneously identify and delist a population of wolves in the western Great Lakes. The Service today reissued the delisting decision in order to comply with the Court’s concerns.

The area included in the DPS boundary includes the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan as well as parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The DPS includes all the areas currently occupied by wolf packs in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as nearby areas in these states in which wolf packs may become established in the future. The DPS also includes surrounding areas into which wolves may disperse but are not likely to establish packs.

Rebounding from a few hundred wolves in Minnesota in the 1970s when listed as endangered, the region’s gray wolf population now numbers about 4,000 and occupies large portions of Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. Wolf numbers in the three states have exceeded the numerical recovery criteria established in the species’ recovery plan for several years. In Minnesota, the population is estimated at 2,922. The estimated wolf population in Wisconsin is a minimum of 537, and about 520 wolves are believed to inhabit Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

The Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources have developed plans to guide wolf management actions in the future. The Service has determined that these plans establish a sufficient basis for long-term wolf management. They address issues such as protective regulations, control of problem animals, possible hunting and trapping seasons, and the long-term health of the wolf population, and will be governed by the appropriate state or tribe.

The Service will monitor the delisted wolf populations for a minimum of five years to ensure that they continue to sustain their recovery. At the end of the monitoring period, the Service will decide if relisting, continued monitoring or ending Service monitoring is appropriate.

###

 
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.

350 Responses to Salazar affirms decision to delist wolves

  1. avatar Virginia says:

    OMG – It sounds like this is the final word. Can anything be done?

  2. Sue, as before.

    The issues haven’t changed, but Idaho (actually Wildlife Services) will get time to kill a lot of wolves.

  3. avatar JB says:

    “The DPS includes all the areas currently occupied by wolf packs in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as nearby areas in these states in which wolf packs may become established in the future. The DPS also includes surrounding areas into which wolves may disperse but are not likely to establish packs.”

    And therein lies the rub; by delisting wolves throughout a geographically huge region, despite the fact that they only currently exist in a small portion of that region, the delisting effectively creates a barrier to future recovery. Under this Rule wolves are now recovered in Ohio despite the fact that they haven’t even established viable populations in any part of Michigan’s lower peninsula. That’s absurd!

    If they want to delist wolves, they should delist them where they have recovered, not where they might have recovered were ESA protections to have remained in place. This is essentially the same plan the courts rejected in 2004.

  4. avatar Ryan says:

    “And therein lies the rub; by delisting wolves throughout a geographically huge region, despite the fact that they only currently exist in a small portion of that region, the delisting effectively creates a barrier to future recovery. Under this Rule wolves are now recovered in Ohio despite the fact that they haven’t even established viable populations in any part of Michigan’s lower peninsula. That’s absurd!”

    How much availaible habitat is there in OH for wolves? What would the human interaction/impact with wolves in those areas? The reason I am asking is from my expiriences, the UP is relavitely sparsely populated making it prime wolf habitat. Where as in my limied expirience in the mid west (I can’t stand to be anywhere east of the Dakotas or south of MO for any amount of time) it seems to be relatively developed and mostly in private ownership, dotted with farms and limited development.. Not exactly prime wolf habitat IMHO.

  5. avatar Layton says:

    Man, I’ll bet there are a bunch of “wolfie” lawyers just licking their chops right now!!

    First comes the publishing, then comes the lawsuits!!

  6. avatar Mike says:

    The early fears of Salazar are 100% confirmed.

    It’s funny how the “wise use” crowd clamors for “case by case” but they have no problem with blanket “top down” plans such as this.

  7. avatar Save bears says:

    I am not surprised that again it has been affirmed, Obama didn’t know anything about wildlife issues when he was running and what makes you think he is that farther along understanding them now! As was stated, the ONLY ones that are winning in this issue is the lawyers!

  8. avatar Ken Cole says:

    You left out the people who are licking their chops to commence the killing Layton.

    Even if there is an injunction there will be mass killing in Idaho.

    There will be 30 days of unregulated killing in Idaho. WS will kill the 26 “chronic packs and IDFG will kill 80% of the wolves in the Lolo. This amounts to a wholesale killing of 300 or so wolves.

  9. avatar Moose says:

    Except for some parts of northern (LP) Mich…there really isn’t much suitable habitat remaining in the Upper Midwest that doesn’t already have a wolf presence. Straits between the UP and LP of Mi infrequently freezes so that the opportunity for wolves to migrate over to the LP is very limited. It is time delist in the Upper Great Lakes.

  10. I don’t have any problem with delisting in the Great Lakes states. The wolf management there has been balanced and generally without hysteria.

    Idaho and Montana are a different matter, Idaho especially.

    Salazar could have tweaked the the delisting proposal to make it tolerable. I think the fact that he didn’t is significant, but I’m not sure in what way.

  11. avatar Devin says:

    I’ve been very happy to see wolves make the progress that they’ve made. As a photographer I can’t state enough how lucky I’ve been to see them in the wild and witness their actions and I was one of the ones that wrote my government the last time the wolves were delisted across the board.

    I’m glad to see that the federal government is giving Wyoming a slap in the face. Had they not been so rediculous, this delisting would have come months ago. That said, just as in any other bureaucratic program, once the goals are reached, the program is reevaluated. The wolf reintroduction was a success, as far as the initial outlined goals are concerned. I’m always sad to see any animal get killed, but sadly, its the culture out here in the West. While I do think its pathetic that ranchers have so much swing here, we have to realize that they are part of the community too and, until the political environment swings left (doubt it ever will), they will always have their say.

    We got our wolves back in the region. The federal goals were achieved. Now all we can do is support this ruling and tell the states, “we give you the wolves, if you can keep them.”

  12. avatar kt says:

    Remember -this is that simpering Walt Minnick’s doing, too. Idaho was much better off with a joke (Sali) than a cringing Republican imitator/tag-along like Minnick.

  13. avatar Layton says:

    “There will be 30 days of unregulated killing in Idaho. WS will kill the 26 “chronic packs and IDFG will kill 80% of the wolves in the Lolo. This amounts to a wholesale killing of 300 or so wolves.”

    “Unregulated killing” — what exactly does that mean Ken? Are you talking about every control action on every depredating wolf?? Or are you talking about when/if there is a season on them?? (as there should have been 5 years ago!!)

    Are we about to enter another “frenzy of moaning” mode where EVERY wolf that is killed gets an obituary and a eulogy like last brief time that it was legal to kill them in Wyoming?? Every time a wolf was wiped out the wailing and gnashing of teeth became louder, even it it was an action that had been planned for before the delisting happened. That happened in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. To deny it would be a lot less than genuine.
    every wolf fatality — FWS – F&G or some rancher protecting his property got put on the same “scoreboard” and was touted as being a result of the delisting.

    There won’t be a hunting season in Idaho (I would guess) until at least September, and by that time I’m sure that the lawyers and judges will be more than primed to stop it.

    First the delisting has to get published, then 30 days, then 60 days till the first lawsuit is filed and probably 5 more days until the first pet (oops, can’t use that word) judge issues an injunction. What’s that? Sometime in July?? I’m still betting we won’t have a season in Idaho.

    By the way, have you seen the latest on proposed elk hunting seasons/numbers in the Stanley area this year?? Guess why they are talking about further limiting the available number of elk tags?? Wouldn’t be because of wolf predation would it??

  14. avatar Layton says:

    Devin,

    “I’m glad to see that the federal government is giving Wyoming a slap in the face. Had they not been so rediculous, this delisting would have come months ago. That said, just as in any other bureaucratic program, once the goals are reached, the program is reevaluated. The wolf reintroduction was a success, as far as the initial outlined goals are concerned”

    Are you really serious?? There will ALWAYS be another “red herring” thrown up as a reason NOT to control the number of wolves in our three state area. The last one was “genetic exchange”. The goals were met four or six years ago and we are just now getting to the second round of lawsuits — God only knows how many more there will be!!

  15. avatar Ken Cole says:

    There probably won’t be a hunting season even if the delisting goes forward because the State of Idaho will kill the quota outlined in the plan before there will be a hunting season.

    They know as well as you why they lost in court last time and they are going to take the first opportunity they can to kill these wolves because they are going to lose in court again.

  16. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    Is it correct that the rule was never published under Bush ? That there has been no NOI sent from Earthjustice ?

  17. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    It seems to me that delisting without Wyoming is a flagrant, on face violation of recovery given plans in all three states must be accepted as a condition of delisting – they can’t amputate Wyoming. If this is the case, and Salazar knows it, then this is a political decision.

  18. avatar Devin says:

    Layton,

    Yup I’m serious. My main point is that no side of this issue is completely right and that I think , finally, an acceptable middle ground has been reached- A middle ground that appeases both interests somewaht and forces Wyoming to join the other two.

    But of course, the fight will continue because neither side will yeild to the other no matter the ruling. Sounds a little like Congress doesn’t it?

  19. avatar Devin says:

    Brian,
    What ISN’T political these days? Given the current climate in Washington, even the fracking digital tv transition was political. The policy-administration dichotomy is dead – for now.

  20. avatar Hoosier says:

    For those that are highly opposed to this delisting I have one question. What should the population be in order for delisting to occur?

    Wolves are viable why do they need listing? I agree with Layton wolf funerals are a bit much. This is another shout out to the great Obama! Looks like he isn’t all that he is cracked up to be.

    Wolves are ready to prove to us that they can do it on there own. Brian says management is not the best answer because we want to manage to much. Well now they get the chance to be wild just like bears, cougars, and coyotes.

    Sounds like a lot of people are over reacting to this. If wolves are killed and they will be this just means that pro-wolfers are going to have to work hard. Time to educate and get as much awareness to the public as possible. Time for the crying to stop and the activist to get busy teaching the facts and making a difference.

    Hey if leading bio’s in the field say they are ready and viable then they are ready and viable.

  21. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    Hoosier,

    the conditions for delisting are outlined as a matter of law – that includes the viability determinations – which are debateable, remember – wolves don’t just have to be deemed viable now, the FWS must demonstrate that each of the three states has in place a plan the will ensure viability into the future. it also includes a process as outlined by the ESA, APA, etc.

    That delisting is done right with wolves is extremely important – because there is hardly a species that enjoys the same level of public salience as does the wolf – and to allow shortcuts for political reasons here would surely condemn lesser known species to a similar and perhaps worse backslide.

  22. Hoosier,

    Wrong question.

    The Idaho population right now is just fine. The population question has always been what will it be when Idaho is done with the killing?

  23. avatar Ryan says:

    Ralph,

    Wasn’t that addressed in Idaho’s origional wolf management plan submitted and approved by FWS and others? Obiviously it wouldn’t be in their best interest to have wolves re-listed.

  24. avatar Ryan says:

    Devin,

    Its like congress if one side was the GLAAD and the other was the religous right.

  25. avatar jerry b says:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
    Not that it’ll do much good, but here’s where you can rant.

  26. avatar JB says:

    Good God, can anyone look past the wolf issue for a moment to the larger precedent being set? I agree that wolves in the upper Great Lakes have recovered and should be removed from ESA protections. I know many of the people who will manage wolves there and trust them to do good work. However, there are no confirmed wolf packs in all of lower Michigan, an area that is ~34,000 square miles (about the size of Maine), 40% of which is forested (much of the rest is wetlands and agriculture), and nearly all of which is teaming with white tailed deer. The FWS is about to say a population has recovered in an area the size of many states, without a single verified individual!

    This action is akin to delisting the Jaguar throughout Texas, Arizona and New Mexico because there are Jaguar in northern Mexico. FWS: Do we need to recover grizzlies in Central Idaho? Nah! We’ve got grizzlies in Yellowstone, we don’t need to list ’em in Idaho; we’ll just extend the DPS to include every possible area that a grizzly might ever make it to and call ’em “recovered.” Get past the big bad wolf for a moment and think about the possible ramifications of allowing this action to stand.

  27. avatar Brooke Funk says:

    But I haven’t seen any wolves in Utah yet, (Goes and cries in the corner)

  28. JB,

    You are right. It’s not the population size, even if well protected as it might will be in MN, WI, and MI.

    It is the pathetic area of occupied territory that I was most offended by in the Northern Rockies delisted zone because it went way beyond the boundaries of Idaho, including a large portion of Utah, Oregon and Washington. Wolves don’t even occupy all of Idaho, and Idaho plans to keep it that way.

    The same is true in the Great Lakes.

  29. avatar Davej says:

    I think a better example of the problems with piecemeal recovery is the delisting of eastern Oregon. Or consider the case of a dispersing wolf like 341F, moving in and out of differing zones of management in a single journey. Where is the logic?

  30. avatar JB says:

    Ralph:

    Exactly! All this talk about wolf numbers, pack numbers, hunting and lethal control obscure a much more important issue: the FWS is about to use DPS policy (which they created to protect populations of endangered species) to delist a species in a ~34,000 sq. mile area, despite the fact that they have an effective population of zero within that area. More importantly, by extending the boundaries so far around so-called “core populations,” FWS is effectively creating a barrier to future dispersal and recovery. I don’t care what you think about wolves, is there anybody that believes this is what Congress had in mind when they passed the ESA?

  31. avatar kt says:

    Salazar is just as bad as Sarah Palin. Doing this – while knowing full well all the wolf slaughter plans being put in place in Idaho … They are going to be aerially gunning wolves in the Lolo … NO DIFFERENCE. Just Salazar will have his intermediary cronies in Wildlife Services do it. Then grin that stupid wax figure-like grin he has …

    Will Defenders run ads against Salazar – and cast him as a villain – as they did with Palin? He deserves the same,. Wolves are going to be gunned in large numbers from the air – just like in Alaska.

  32. avatar Brooke Funk says:

    It just makes me angry because this makes it more likely that wolves won’t make it further into Utah and other places. The populations are going to continue to stay where they are and wolves will be less likely to wander further south because they won’t need to! I don’t know much about politics (hardly any!) Is there anything Utah can do individually as a state about this?

  33. avatar Brooke Funk says:

    Sorry I just realized the stupidity of my question…. this will give power to my state. Anyone know how Utah plans on managing wolves if it ever gets them? And another question… if the “regions of wolves” are the places being measured, why don’t the regions as a hole share a wildlife plan?

  34. avatar JimT says:

    Remember back when all of us were debating about Salazar and how some comments stated that those of us who distrusted Salazar were exaggerating, pre-judging, not giving him a chance?

    What do you think now?

    He did this with NO consultation with any of the environmental groups, and two days after he had met with the heads of various environmental groups. Not a hint, word, warning. Nada. And he did it on a Friday..dead day for news cycle.

    There will be lawsuits, and the enviros will win, as sad as that makes Layton. But, there will be wolves slaughtered for no scientifically-based reason in the interim, and you can bet there will be an all out effort to kill as many as they can before a judge can overturn or stay the rule’s implementation.

    As far as Defenders goes, yes, there will most certainly be ads and videos by the c(4) organization of DOW. Salazar did this as a gesture to his fellow Empty Hats of the grazing community, and it was an arrogant and deliberate slap at environmental supporters of wolves and predators in general. We tried to tell the naysayers who suipported Salazar he was anti-wolf and anti-ESA. Want to bet he abandons the polar bear agenda?

    I am wondering if federal Wildlife Services is the actual Federal agency who will be doing the killing, if there is away for Congress to yank budget funds for their activities in this area?

    Ralph, do you know?

  35. avatar Cobra says:

    Ralph,
    Where in Idaho is there not a population of wolves? Jus curious.
    – – – – –

    There are no wolf packs in southeast or southern Idaho, despite good habitat.
    Ralph Maughan

  36. avatar Layton says:

    “They are going to be aerially gunning wolves in the Lolo”

    Any sort of proof kt?? Or is this just more of your pathological, hate filled rhetoric against anything Federal??

    I’ll bet I know the answer!!

  37. avatar JimT says:

    Layton, what the hell do you think will be the method of choice to shoot packs involving hundreds of wolves? You think Wildlife Services is going to track the wolves by foot or snowmobile in the middle of winter? Nah…easier to follow the Alaskan model and slaughter them in chest deep snow when they can’t run effectively.

    We are not against anything Federal; we are against illegal actions that involve needless killing of predators. And the law and the science don’t support the rule’s assertions of recovery. Remember this is the SAME rule the Court struck down during the Bush era.

  38. avatar Leslie says:

    Just ‘delisting’ and allowing hunting does not take into account any of the complexities i.e. just reducing a pack’s numbers so hinders the pack order and can lead to more calf killings. Also, why don’t they begin to create some laws on the other side for more sustainable ranching in wolf country. In my valley there were no calf killings, just elk, on a ranch all summer, until the owners stupidly moved their cattle into the forest interface areas where the elk oversummered. Than, BAM, 3 callves were killed. Of course, then the pack was wiped out by Wildlife Services and the owner got compensated (who’s rich anyways) for his losses. Delisting should have a real plan in place that is binding for, especially, these ‘tax write-off’ absentee ranchers who I definitely don’t feel sorry for. In addition, delisting should address the whole issue of grazing on federal lands where wolves are. That’s a real free ride as well to ranchers. ‘Delisting’ the way they’re doing it is a way not to do any real thinking about the science and the real politics that are happening.

  39. avatar JimT says:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    March 6, 2009

    Same bad plan for wolves

    Salazar strips federal Endangered Species Act protection from wolves in Idaho, Montana

    WASHINGTON – Today, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced he has decided to follow the Bush administration’s flawed decision to remove the protections of the Endangered Species Act from wolves in Idaho and Montana.

    The following is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president for Defenders of Wildlife:

    “Today is a truly disappointing day for Americans who care deeply about the Northern Rockies wolf population and for the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. We are outraged and disappointed that Secretary Salazar has chosen to push the same, terrible Bush administration plan for wolf delisting just six weeks into President Obama’s administration.

    “We all expected more from the Obama administration, but Defenders of Wildlife will now move to sue Secretary Salazar as quickly as possible.

    “Just three days ago, we were thrilled when President Obama stood before employees of the Department of the Interior, with Secretary Salazar at his side, and vowed to ‘help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act.’ Yet today, Secretary Salazar announced that he is adopting a rule that is just as flawed now as it was when the Bush administration issued this appalling plan. Americans voted for change last November. Today Secretary Salazar gave us more of the same discredited approach to conservation followed by the Bush administration for the past eight years.

    “All the reasons why this plan was a bad idea when the Bush administration proposed it still stand today. If this rule is allowed to stand, nearly two-thirds of the wolves in the Northern Rockies could be killed. This plan would undermine the goal of ensuring a healthy, sustainable wolf population in the region. Secretary Salazar’s terrible decision leaves us no choice. We will stand up for wolves and endangered species conservation by moving immediately to challenge this delisting in court.”

    The following is a statement by Suzanne Stone, northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife.

    “Nothing about this rule has changed since it was rejected and deemed unlawful in a federal court in July of 2008. It still fails to adequately address biological concerns about the lack of genetic exchange among wolf populations in the northern Rockies and it still fails to address the concerns with the states’ wolf management plans and regulations that undermine a sustainable wolf population by killing too many wolves.

    “We had hoped for a new delisting plan, based on current science that provides for a healthy, well connected wolf population in the region. Instead we are forced to, once again, challenge a bad rule forcing the expenditure of time and money that would have been much better served towards developing responsible state management plans.

    “Delisting the wolf at this point completely undermines the serious work, consideration and cooperation among all stakeholders that is necessary before being able to seriously declare the gray wolf recovered.”

    ###

    Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members and activists, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information, visit http://www.defenders.org.

  40. avatar JimT says:

    Leslie, do you really think the moving of those cattle into wolf prey areas was an oversight? Or that they knew what the result would be, and they sacrificed their “sacred cows” to have a reason to kill of the wolf pack.?

  41. avatar Izabela Matej says:

    Layton,
    I dont’ know and I am sorry that I need to form my opinion about you based on your posts here.
    Why are you wasting your time on this board?
    Why dont’ you join Marion. I bet she is celebrating.
    Why are you always so negative?
    Why are you hating wolves? What did they do to you?
    Are you afraid of them?

  42. avatar Leslie says:

    Another thing is that personally I feel pretty betrayed by the Obama admin. I was disappointed by Salazar as his pick by took the ‘wait and see’ hopeful approach that Salazar would work to bring people together. Just on a personal note there. I am not theoretically against delisting at some point; just the science and all the pieces should be really considered.

  43. avatar Leslie says:

    Jim, good point that I of course, in my naivete never thought of!

  44. avatar TimothyB says:

    JimT: I was one of those who said give President Obama a chance and I still am hopeful and optimistic. But, I accept your “I told you so”. I bow to your wisdom and foresight. With that said…

    We have a few choices. 1. Vigorously fight the delisting. 2. Work towards a compromise. 3. Give up the cause.

    It seems to me the previous “vigorous fight” didn’t help put off wolf delisting and giving up isn’t in my blood. I see only one viable option.

    “Moderation in all things.” – Terence, Andria (185 BC – 159 BC)

  45. avatar JimT says:

    Moderation is only a wise choice if it leads to positive results..AND..the parties are equally committed to the same goals. In the case of wolves, the public land welfare ranching commmunity isn’t interested in moderation when it comes to wolves. They want them gone. They want them dead.

    I don’t blame Obama per se for this decision. From what I hear from DC folks, this came as pretty much a surprise to the White House. I do hold Obama responsible for approving the Environmental Transition Team (Hayes) choice for Interior. At the same time, Obama has his hands, arms legs and feet busy trying to deal with the economy and the ugly ugly mess Bush left the country in. Wolves in the West probably doesn’t make his daily briefing materials. as much as *I* think it should.

    I think we need to get Obama out West to the wild places..so he has context for our protests and outrage…Not at some lectern in front of the Grand Canyon, but out in the Canyonlands, or Bob Marshall, or the Lamar Valley…

    How can you compromise with the other side when their goals are so opposite from the goals of those of us who support wolf and bear and cougar population restoration and health?

    I take no pleasure in being correct about Salazar and wolves, believe me. I would rather have a scenario where the Interior Department is run by science and law, not by the traditional extractive industries of the West. These industries have forced environmentalists into confrontative postures because of their historical refusal to abide by the laws and regulations that apply to public lands and their inhabitants. So be it. It is just that the justice system moves more slowly than the executive agency decisions. so unless Obama woodsheds Salazar for blindsiding him today and has him quickly reverse course, there are going to be some ugly numbers about wolf kills in Idaho and Montana in 2009.

  46. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    “Moderation above truth.” – TimothyB (2009 AD)

  47. avatar JimT says:

    Brian, are you serious about that quote?

  48. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    JimT –

    no. it was meant to convey the mastery with which TimothyB has turned the call for “moderation” into a fundamentalist pursuit.

    the previous decision to litigate delisting was based on its being unlawful – that fact was vindicated by a judge. wolf advocates have bent over backwards to extend their willingness to find a ‘middle ground’ — compensation, grants to promote predator friendly techniques, asking for wolf viewing areas, etc. all of that good faith and regard has been consistently met with a spit in the face.

  49. avatar kt says:

    You know – one wonders if there was a quid pro quo here. Local media had some blurbs about Otter, like Obama, ballyhooing lifting embargoes on Cuba recently. Otter was back in DC for the Governor’s mtg a couple weeks ago. I wonder what backroom discussions might have occurred there. Maybe the Obamans think getting Butch to say “Yay – Take down barriers to Cuba” is some marvelous feat. Worth rewarding with wolf slaughter.

    Of course, the reason (besides the bordello allure of Cuba’s past) for Butch Otter’s loving Cuba is not just to sell Idaho ag. products -it is because the Simplot Ag-Chemical business wants to get ahold of Cuba’s phosphate deposits. And wreak further environmental damage there. THAT is what the Otter trip 3 or so years ago was all about. Butch enriching himself as Simplot’s ex-son-in-law. Simplot locking up Cab’s phosphate …

  50. avatar kt says:

    Sorry … “locking up Cuba’s phosphate” is what I meant to type.

  51. avatar Barb says:

    I was not surprised when I heard Salazar is for the wolf delisting. He comes from a long line of livestock interests, which puts cattle on a pedestal far above wildlife.

    Obama made a bad decision when choosing Salazar. I’m not surprised though, because as I’ve been saying for a long time, people who come from other parts of the country are generally not familiar with western issues at all, specifically predator issues. They need to read “Predatory Bureaucracy” by Michael Robinson — for homework!

    They need to be seriously educated. And Obama needs to hear from groups like Defenders, WildEarth Guardians, etc. directly. The ag industry has been running politics for too long in the West, with their desires eclipsing all else.

    It is overdue for people who care first about the land and the wildlife to have their voices heard rather than their voices being drowned out by livestock interests wanting a “san\itized” countryside.

    This delisting is nothing but a “good excuse” for wolf haters to go on killing sprees.

    I’ve always felt that wolves and bison deserve permanent protections directly because of their persecuted past, like the Native American people. It is plain wrong for certain animals to be persecuted like this.

  52. avatar TimothyB says:

    Brian, kt said:
    “Wolves are going to be gunned in large numbers from the air – just like in Alaska.”

    Your distaste for “moderation” COULD change one word in the above statement from “large” to moderate or even small. But then again the delisting will only mean the killing 200?, 300? 400? or maybe 500+ wolves in Idaho? The worst case scenario in the Clearwater region alone will be 100 dead. I guess those numbers are acceptable?

  53. avatar Barb says:

    Hunting wolves or other predators is very wrong and very disgusting. No one eats them.

  54. avatar Save bears says:

    Barb,

    I agree no one eats wolves or coyotes, but I beg to differ, I know quite a few that eat both bear and lion meat…

  55. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    TimothyB,

    what are you talking about ? my distaste for your flavor of “moderation” is that it has a tendancy to keep sliding.

  56. avatar Cobra says:

    Can anyone tell me if wolves north of I-90 will be de-listed in this or is it still like the old 10j rule that means wolves north of I-90 are still under the ESA.

  57. avatar Save bears says:

    From my understanding they will be delisted in all of Montana as well as Idaho and remain on the list in Wyoming. And the delisting includes wolves north of I-90

  58. avatar meadow says:

    In addition to bowing to the wishes of ranchers, Salazar got a letter signed by a bunch of hunting organizations asking for delisting. Signators included the Rocky mt elk foundation, the mule deer foundation, the safari club, the NRA, the US sportsmen’s alliance, the National Trapper’s association and about 2 dozen others. Hunters want to be able to kill wolves and they want more game to kill themselves. It makes me sad to say these organizations are not conservation minded.

  59. avatar Travis says:

    So being that these wolves were reintroduced from Canada is it the viewpoint of DOW and other likewise aligned groups that these animals are also endangered in Canada?

  60. avatar Layton says:

    So many quotes, so little time!! But I’ll try!!

    JimT,

    “Layton, what the hell do you think will be the method of choice to shoot packs involving hundreds of wolves?”

    which pack is it that has “hundreds of wolves”? Or is it multiple packs?? Or is this more “the sky is falling” mentality?

    Izabela,

    “Why don’t’ you join Marion. I bet she is celebrating.
    Why are you always so negative?
    Why are you hating wolves? What did they do to you?
    Are you afraid of them?”

    Who is Marion?? I’m not always negative, today is a good day! I don’t “hate” wolves, they are just animals — I just don’t love them or attribute magical powers to them. Nope, I’m not afraid of them, I can handle them.

    Brian E.

    “wolf advocates have bent over backwards to extend their willingness to find a ‘middle ground’ — compensation, grants to promote predator friendly techniques, asking for wolf viewing areas, etc. all of that good faith and regard has been consistently met with a spit in the face.”

    In a word —- bullshit!!

    Meadow,

    “In addition to bowing to the wishes of ranchers, Salazar got a letter signed by a bunch of hunting organizations asking for delisting. Signators included the Rocky mt elk foundation, the mule deer foundation, the safari club, the NRA, the US sportsmen’s alliance, the National Trapper’s association and about 2 dozen others.”

    FINALLY!! Most of these orgs. have been playing the game and thinking that common sense would prevail — it has NOT, so now maybe they are getting off the fence!! I might have to renew my memberships in a couple of them!!

    Amazing!! Another attempt to delist the puppies, which should have been done five or six years ago, and listen to the crying!! How many wolves would it take to make it quiet down?? 5000? 10,000?? Nope, probably not enough.

  61. avatar John d. says:

    Seems that Idaho wants its 100 wolves maximum again. Honestly, if IDFG wanted to push for killing while still under the ESA, it certainly reflects their views on the role of predators. Montana is no better what with its appalling record with livestock owner pandering. If this is the mentality of the West, that everything that moves needs a bullet in its head then attitudes definitely need to be turned around or quelled completely.

    Travis,

    Some wolf species are indeed endangered in Canada, two have been completely eradicated, the Labrador and the Newfoundland wolf. Due to liberal hunting and trapping. Though it hasn’t seemed to stop the eradication programs targeted on the Mackenzie Valley or British Columbia Wolf. Canada treats the wolves like vermin, particularly in places such as Alberta and Ontario.

    The reintroduction also took 20 years to get through public negotiations. During the last stretch of the journey to Yellowstone, the transport teams had to employ a decoy trailer so no one would shoot the wolves as soon as they were released.

    Layton

    Obnoxious as ever I see…

    Just because some people like seeing moving animals instead of shooting more holes into them than the plot of a American action movie, it doesn’t mean to say they give them ‘magical powers’. If you are referring to people who say animals are intelligent and can feel pain just as much as humans, [not] sorry to say they are correct.
    There is no compromise in this, the only groups mentioned and heard were from hunting/farming orientated organisations, not from both sides of the fence.

  62. avatar Elkchaser says:

    “JimT Says:
    March 6, 2009 at 7:49 PM
    Moderation is only a wise choice if it leads to positive results..AND..the parties are equally committed to the same goals. In the case of wolves, the public land welfare ranching commmunity isn’t interested in moderation when it comes to wolves. They want them gone. They want them dead.”

    JimT, there are just as many folks that think that no wolves should ever be hunted or killed and they need to be reintroduced to every inch of national forest from Canada to Mexico, so don’t pretend that the only people that are being unreasonable is the folks that think we need a hunting season for wolves.

    “meadow Says:
    March 7, 2009 at 12:08 AM
    In addition to bowing to the wishes of ranchers, Salazar got a letter signed by a bunch of hunting organizations asking for delisting. Signators included the Rocky mt elk foundation, the mule deer foundation, the safari club, the NRA, the US sportsmen’s alliance, the National Trapper’s association and about 2 dozen others. Hunters want to be able to kill wolves and they want more game to kill themselves. It makes me sad to say these organizations are not conservation minded.”

    Meadow, please tell me about any conservation group that has done more in the last 100 years for wildlife conservation than the hunting crowd. Teddy Roosevelt was the original hunter/conservationist and many more of us have followed in his footsteps.

  63. avatar John d. says:

    In his hunting career, Teddy Roosevelt killed over 600 animals including White Rhinos. Not a very good conservationist.

  64. avatar Elkchaser says:

    However, I would bet that his efforts saved and provided for more than 100 times what he harvested. Sounds like pretty good math to me.

  65. avatar John d. says:

    Nope.

  66. avatar John d. says:

    Considering that the White Rhino is now extinct in the wild, along with plenty of the other animals he had mounted in the International Wildlife Museum with special honours to his kills and those of a man named of C.J. McElroy.

    Roosevelt did nothing to stop the Northern Rockies wolf population from being exterminated even when their numbers were a mere fraction of what they were before. One can bet that he also took his fare share of these animals. Once again – not a very good conservationist.

  67. avatar Elkchaser says:

    So, you are telling me that his creation of many of our wilderness areas, national parks and forests didn’t have a huge impact on wildlife? In additional to all of the other conservations efforts he championed? Give me a break.

  68. avatar John d. says:

    He allowed one of the worst environmental blunders to proceed which resulted in the near collapse of the West’s ecosystem. The status of National Parks meant nothing to hunters during the 1930s or now in Alaska.

  69. avatar JB says:

    John d.

    I think you’re engaging in some revisionist history. If you were to create a list of people to thank for having the foresight to begin conservation efforts in North America, Teddy Roosevelt would have to be at–or very near–the top of your list.

    Consider…
    -Roosevelt’s administration established the Forest Service
    -Roosevelt helped found (along with George Bird Grinnell) the Boone & Crockett club
    -Roosevelt pushed through congressional approval for five National Parks and 51 wildlife refuges (before there was a National Wildlife Refuge system)
    -In total, Roosevelt’s efforts extended federal protections to more than 230 million acres of land

    Nearly everyone living during Roosevelt’s time considered wolves to be vermin–even so, institutionalized Federal predator eradication did not begin until after his death.

    These facts make your assertions that he was “…not a very good conservationist” ring hollow.

  70. avatar John d. says:

    Swing and a miss for me… oh well… everyone can be wrong.

  71. avatar william huard says:

    I think that JB and John D both have good points. I’m not so sure that being a founder of the Boone and Crockett Club has turned out to be such a good thing. The modern day Safari Club International is extremely controversial with their “Promoting of Wildlife Conservation Worldwide” Many people consider them to be extremely dangerous and irresponsible. Many chapter leaders including Sonny Milstead of the Texas chapter have been cited for killing Tigers in Pens without a permit. Some of these people including Kenneth Behring feel as if they are” Superior Beings”. Behring for example paid a foreign government head of state 275,000.00 or some ridiculous amount to kill an Argali Sheep when there were 100 of these animals on the planet. For some of these people it’s like an addiction, where they will pay any amount of money, the rarer the species the better, all to promote a commercial market for disappeaing wildlife. Promoting Wildlife Conservation Worldwide- who are they kidding.

  72. avatar meadow says:

    Precisely. A hundred years ago “hunters” had decimated widlife. I do give credit to Roosevelt and his ilk for trying to undo what hunters had wrought and end hunting for the market. But now, with multi-thousand dollar guided hunts, the market is back and wildlife is being traded for big bucks (excuse the pun) in the form of tags. When females vastly outnumber males and no males live past 3 or 4 years old, and there are no predators besides people- that is not good wildlife “management” and it is not good for biodiversity nor population health. Wolves kill the old, the sick, the very young, not the strong in the prime of their lives like hunters do. If there isn’t enough game for wolves and people, its the humans who should stand down.

  73. avatar Barb says:

    “Salazar got a letter signed by a bunch of hunting organizations asking for delisting. Signators included the Rocky mt elk foundation, the mule deer foundation, the safari club, the NRA, the US sportsmen’s alliance, the National Trapper’s association and about 2 dozen others. Hunters want to be able to kill wolves and they want more game to kill themselves. It makes me sad to say these organizations are not conservation minded.”

    The Safari Club is a club of extremely wealthy people who pay big bucks to engage in “canned hunting” and call it “conservation.” They hunt giraffes, polar bears, zebras, etc. It’s disgusting. Some of these animals come from zoos that no longer wanted them. Instead, zoos should be humanely euthanizing animals that are truly sick.

    The founder of ReMax, a billionaire, whom I understand is a member, started a non-profit “wildlife museum” in the Denver suburbs called The Wildlife Experience. Of course the museum has nothing to say about local conservation issues such as protecting prairie dogs as local Metro Districts with production homebuilders in their pockets routinely poison the dogs to appease the residents.

    A friend of mine attended a party at his house a few years back and said it was filled with stuffed TROPHY carcasses. She found it disgusting and left early.

    “OK, kids, after daddy goes ‘hunting’ (in enclosed areas), I’ll take you to my museum to show you how the wolves and bison lived.”

  74. avatar Barb says:

    I don’t know if anyone has ever looked at Ted Nugent’s hunting blog, but it is filled with predator haters, extreme NRA members, and Safari Club foaming-at-the-mouth supporters. Where do these people get off that they are “conservationists?” They’re idiots.

  75. avatar william huard says:

    Barb, What the Safari Club is all about is that they would love to have all species in captive breeding facilities so they could be handed over to their own members on a silver platter, because most of them wouldn’t know how to kill an animal in the wild. I was incensed after reading about Kenneth Behring. Go to the internet and put in” Kenneth behring kills argali sheep”. Without trying to get further off the track, it is the Safari Club that has pushed the aerial gunning agenda in Alaska. I called their offices in Az after their loophole to import polar bear hides in the country ended when the polar bear became protected again. They are extremely unhappy that they can’t kill polar bears anymore.

  76. avatar Save bears says:

    William,

    The Boone and Crockett Club is an entirely different entity than the Safari Club and have strong rules in place against canned hunting, genetic manipulation and other ethical concerns…that is often brought up by those who do not hunt. The B&C does not condone many of the practices of the SCI and does not recognize many of the animals taken by its members….

    You might want to read a bit through their views on ethics and such…

    http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_cannedshoot.asp?area=huntingEthics

  77. avatar Barb says:

    Yes, you’re right — the Safari Club was pushing for aerial hunting– all they care about is trophies to show off to their wealthy friends. It is a highly unethical organization and what makes them so dangerous is their money. One of their biggest offenses is having the gall to call themselves conservationists.

    Regarding Kenneth Behring, I am speechless (if that’s possible).

  78. avatar JEFF E says:

    Idaho’s butt wipe Governor Clem is a lifetime member of SCI.

  79. avatar Save bears says:

    I have a question about wolves that end up in Utah or Colorado and have not been able to find a clear answer…are wolves in Colorado and Utah slated to be managed under 10(j) or would they be managed under full ESA rules?

  80. avatar william huard says:

    Save Bears,

    I just want to make it clear that I have no problem with ethical hunting. It is my personal choice to not participate in hunting activities. I have friends that hunt that are clearly embarrassed when they hear about people like Mr Behring who feel as if they can do whatever they want and call it “conservation”.

  81. avatar Save bears says:

    William,

    Believe me, I have no love loss for SCI as an organization, I do however have a few friends that belong to this organization…although I know for a fact they do not do “canned Killing” as B&C calls it…I have found that virtually every single organization has those in its ranks that are of the opinion they are above all others.

    My only reason for posting about B&C was your statement about being a founder might not be a good thing..

    I feel that Roosevelt was a great person for wildlife, based on the prevailing ethics and beliefs at the time he lived and B&C has altered and changed their beliefs as they and the country has grown and changed..

    Roosevelt is the main reason that the Pacific NW has a viable population of Elk now a days, he was the one that relocated elk from the GYA because elk were virtually wiped out in Washington and Oregon during his lifetime and they currently bear the name of Roosevelt Elk as opposed to Rocky Mountain Elk…

  82. avatar Virginia says:

    I am very puzzled by the people who write on this blog who obviously have only one interest in wildlife and that is to kill it for whatever reason – hunting, hatred, ignorance. Is it just to antagonize the people who obviously have a love and respect for all wildlife and wish to preserve it for future generations? This blog is a refuge for me to read the writings of people who are of the same mind as I – that is to respect the value of wildlife in my life – being able to observe and appreciate ALL wildlife – whether it be coyotes, elk, foxes, rabbits, wolves, porcupines, deer, etc., etc.

  83. avatar Layton says:

    Save Bears,

    “they currently bear the name of Roosevelt Elk as opposed to Rocky Mountain Elk…”

    Clarify this for me — will you?? I’m under the impression that Roosevelt Elk are a whole different critter than Rocky Mtn. Elk — NOT just a name difference. The horns are different, the body size is different and a lot of their habits are different.

    Are you saying that they are, in fact, the same critter??

  84. avatar Layton says:

    From Wickepedia — FWIW

    “Roosevelt (C. canadensis roosevelti), Tule (C. canadensis nannodes), Manitoban (C. canadensis manitobensis) and Rocky Mountain (C. canadensis nelsoni).[10] The Eastern Elk (C. canadensis canadensis) and Merriam’s Elk (C. canadensis merriami) subspecies have been extinct for at least a century.”

  85. avatar Save bears says:

    Virgina,

    Teddy Roosevelt after touring the Olympic Forest area in Washington and hearing the stories about elk being in large numbers in the area in the past, spearheaded a program to relocate Yellowstone National Park Elk to the pacific NW in the early part of the 1900’s, there were a few elk still left on the coastal areas of the PNW they intermixed with the relocated animals to become what is now known as the Roosevelt Elk, over the last 100 years, they have evolved to have larger bodies as well as antlers due to the different climate and mineral contents in their feed, but they are a mix of the original species that inhabited the area and the Rocky Mtn Elk that were re-located there…Now their is another sub-species of Elk that live in Southern Oregon and Northern California that are called Thule Elk which are not the same..

  86. avatar JEFF E says:

    SB
    wolves in Colorado would have full protection at this point. In Utah the 10j rule was expanded to include the northern tip of the state-The high uintas which would be the best habitat to have wolves in Utah.

  87. avatar Save bears says:

    Excuse me, that is Tule Elk, not Thule, fingers were typing faster than my mind was thinking. The Roosevelt Elk are also known as the Olympic Elk..

  88. avatar JEFF E says:

    Rocky Mt elk have also been transplanted to a number of east of the Mississippi states but You don’t hear any outcry about Non-native species there. At least not much. Some places farmers and Livestock interests complain(go figure)

  89. avatar Elkchaser says:

    Virginia,
    So if I belong to an organization that purchases critical winter range to protect it from development and I participate in projects that help monitor wildlife and plant important vegitation for their nutritional benefit — none of that can be good if I also am a hunter. That is a clueless argument that makes you seem not too bright.
    Just because I am a hunter doesn’t mean I want all the wolves killed.

  90. avatar Save bears says:

    I will also add, yes they are considered a different species, but they were supplemented with elk from the Rocky Mtns..I have heard them Called Teddy’s elk.

    I did a lot of my research in getting my degree on elk when I was going to school in Washington…one of the worst places in the world to do field work is the rain forest of the Olympics! LOL your wet all the time and sometimes feel like you are growing webs as well as moss on your body!

  91. avatar Save bears says:

    But I apologize, I got off topic here…back to the regular scheduled programming…

  92. avatar John says:

    Newsflash Ralph, there are wolves in south east Idaho. Many have seen them and IDFG attitude is yeah we know. when ask why they are not documented they site cost as the reason. I live in Blackfoot and there is a orange helecopter flying grid patterns over the riverbottoms trying to track 3 wolves 2 of which are collared. They took up residence this winter. They spent the summer out on the desert utilizing the elk that inhabit unit 68. When the elk moved toward the reservoir for better food sources the wolves followed. Then found the riverbottoms and liked what they found cause they are still here. I was actually excited and intrigued when I heard all of this from a local offical that was briefed by the IDFG. I guess the close proximity to homes and such made it worth it to collar and track these wolves.
    I get disapointed when reason and sound science no longer means anything, when it doesn’t support your view. Many here have lost reason to emotion and the hysterical replies here prove that.
    I guess I have much more belief and respect for the wolves than many of you. I think they have a bright future here in Idaho and will continue to expand despite being hunted. I predict that they become adept at avoiding humans and that less than you expect will be killed.
    I know that this will be a problem for some but I think it’s time the wolves become wild again, sure they will be harder to find and to photograph, you will have to work harder and hike farther. It may take weeks to locate and glimpse them. But the reward will be sweeter too.

  93. John,

    There have been wolf packs in SE Idaho and southern Idaho. There was very likely one on the Fort Hall Reservation for several years, but they disappeared, and I don’t think it was free- lancing wolf killers, but that is just my feeling. I have no proof at all.

    As the federal management of wolves in Idaho was coming to an end, I stopped reported any sightings from SE or Eastern Idaho (or anywhere for that matter).

  94. avatar Maska says:

    John,

    I tend to agree with you that reasonably regulated sport hunting in itself won’t represent a serious threat to the wolf population in the Northern Rockies. However, as Ralph and others have pointed out, the far more efficient “predator control” practiced by Wildlife Services on behalf of the livestock industry most certainly can.

    The history of the wolf in the West (as amply documented in Michael Robinson’s book Predatory Bureaucracy) demonstrates that even unregulated killing by private individuals and bounty hunters didn’t succeed in wiping out the wolf. It took the concerted efforts of the federal government to do the job. Wildlife Services are the high tech heirs of that tradition of predator extermination. Once the loose restrictions of the 10(j) population rule are lifted, we may well see history repeat itself.

    As long as Western state governments are disproportionately dominated by representives of the livestock business, there’s a huge question in my mind as to whether those governments can and will provide adequate protection for predators–especially wolves.

  95. avatar gline says:

    Truly sad news, but doesnt surprize me.

  96. avatar Barb says:

    And we’re “lucky” enough to have Salazar (the fox) in charge of the henhouse.

    This statement is right on the mark:
    As long as Western state governments are disproportionately dominated by representives of the livestock business, there’s a huge question in my mind as to whether those governments can and will provide adequate protection for predators–especially wolves.

    Will it do any good to INNUDATE Salazar with letters?

  97. avatar Barb says:

    Whoops, I’ve already contacted certain interested media on the conflict of interest we have with Salazar and that delisting is not a good option ….. at least now…….

    The Secretary of the Interior of the 21st century needs to put conservation first, and stop the archaic ways of the special interests getting their way……. people were too quiet during Salazar’s nomination! Why didn’t the conservation groups scream louder to Obama? They share in the blame.

  98. avatar Barb says:

    There is always that (incorrect) view among those who vote Democratic that the Dems will look out for conservation. This has shown not to be true…. I guess it’s the lesser of the evils unfortunately but the Dems need to be accountable to their constituents who are to a large percentage, conservationists.

    Not to get too political but I would bet that the majority of the Safari Club members vote Republican and truly think of themselves as conservationists…. same with the NRA, Ted Nugent’s foaming-at-the-mouth followers….. and others…

  99. avatar Save bears says:

    Barb,

    I am sure your pretty much right, that the members of those groups do vote republican, and call them selves conservationists, but their ideal of conservation is far different than your ideals of conservation, two of the groups you mention base their votes on 2nd amendment issues and not land conservation issues..I would expect any member of these groups as many other groups, vote based on the right to keep an bear arms and the right to manage wildlife for sustainable numbers to hunt…which has somehow over the years been equated to be the same…

    Myself personally consider the right to keep arms as a different issue than the right to hunt….and as such should be discussed in different conversations…I however do believe in both of these, I am in favor of the 2nd and I am in favor of hunting…

  100. avatar atlas says:

    John d.
    white rhinos are not extinct in the wild I googled it just to make sure. There isn’t a species of rhino that’s extinct or extinct in the wild. But I there is a subspecies of white rhino that is down to only a few individuals left. All rhinos are endangered.

  101. avatar Heather says:

    test??? put a comment in here and it disappeared? because of my name? cant tel ralph would u send me an email if there is a problem. thanks.

  102. avatar Barb says:

    Here is what Salazar had to say about the delisting. A good example of putting lipstick on a pig… spin something negative in a positive light … using the right words to fool the general population…

    http://www.fws.gov/

  103. avatar Barb says:

    It’s just disingenuous and a lie to not address the venom and hostility of the livestock industry in the west towards predators.

    Advocates for delisting try to paint the de-listing as a “successs” like “OK, we have enough populations in the Great Lakes and IDaho and Montana. Go ahead and de-list.”

    Yea, right — and here comes the hatred and killing again. Killing animals should never stem from bias and hatred of them.

  104. avatar Virginia says:

    Elkchaser – that is the sort of response I would expect from someone who calls themselves “elkchaser.” By the way, would the reason you “purchase critical winter range… monitor wildlife and plant important (vegitation – misspelled) vegetation that they can eat” be so that you could kill the elk on that particular range?

  105. avatar william huard says:

    I am confused that the usfws and the dept of the interior could make the same mistake and delist so prematurely with such open hostility that is apparent from Butch “if you had my hair you’d be mad at the world” otter and an Idaho legislature that is clearly anti-wildlife. Otter has politicised this issue from the beginning. Being from the east coast our legislature is very progressive and pro-wildlife. The hunting community went through a long process just to get a five-week extention to the coyote hunting season.

  106. avatar Barb says:

    I think east coast politicians are very unfamilar with western issues and don’t want to be bothered. The livestock industry is the most vocal constituency in the west. It shouldn’t be.

  107. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Can anyone specify which portions of Utah, Washington, and Oregon wolves are not going to be endangered according to this ruling? Is there a map available for the areas in question which Salazar is declaring recovered? I’m assuming they are referring to areas along the border with Idaho and Wyoming but I am curious how far into those states they are endangered? Where does Colorado fit into this?

  108. avatar william huard says:

    i’m sure this is a complicated issue. The livestock industry has way to much influence, but it is encouraging to see all the activism that you people have about your lands.
    I was optimistic that the Obama administration was going to shake up the dept of the interior and implement some much needed changes like overhaul Wildlife Services and put them back under usfws control rather than dept of ag which is a major conflict of interest. after this premature ruling I hope this won’t be just business as usual.

  109. avatar Save bears says:

    One of the biggest problems in this country is you have East, you have West and then you have the middle, the wolves reside in the middle and with all of the rest of the crap that goes on, 2/3rds of the country don’t pay attention to the middle!

    It is just the area you have to cross to get to Yellowstone, Yosemite or Grand Canyon…it only affects their lives a couple weeks a year, then they back to REAL life! Which is why most of this crap eventually goes through, even the President has no idea of what goes on here!

  110. avatar Don George says:

    As I stated in an earlier post when Salazar was appointed “Watch out people”. Salazar is a rancher at heart and Obama doesn’t have a clue about Natural Resources. Wait and see we haven’t seen anything yet!

  111. avatar william huard says:

    You should be proud of your efforts to protect wildlife, without the activism that I see wolves wouldn’t have a chance. Believe it or not we have states like Maine that have some awful wildlife laws- in Maine they allow hounding, baiting, and trapping of bears, as far as wolves go there has been talk of a reintroduction of wolves in New Hampshire and Maine but it has been met with fierce opposition from locals that believe in the old superstitions and prejudices about wolves.

  112. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    Don,
    I’ve got a sinking feeling that you’re right. Salazar is just another good ok’ boy – he takes care of his own.

  113. avatar JimT says:

    Elkchaser said

    “JimT, there are just as many folks that think that no wolves should ever be hunted or killed and they need to be reintroduced to every inch of national forest from Canada to Mexico, so don’t pretend that the only people that are being unreasonable is the folks that think we need a hunting season for wolves.”

    OK, we are back to arguing that extreme positions on one end justify equally extreme ends on the other, are we?

    The arguments that wolves be reintroduced to appropriate, scientifically and historically supportable habitats doesn’t demand the extinction of the public land rancher as a condition…it is tempting though..VBG…. Advocates call for a return to a more balanced ecosystem with native predator and prey populations healthy and sustainable. It is the grazing community who is calling for a second extirpation of wolves in the lower 48, or such constrained management areas that the populations would be genetically unhealthy and would not be sustainable, and amount to the same thing.

    I am not sure there is the necessity for a “hunting season” on wolves, is there? I guess it depends on what you define as necessity. If you are a hunter, and you are afraid the wolves might take a trophy buck or two…well, I guess one would see it as a necessity to kill a fellow competitor. Good animal management by ranchers can minimize or eliminate the chances for wolf predations..use of dog and range riders with herds..”Just like in the good old days”..has proven effective in herd and flock protections. And the few that are verifiable as wolf kills have funds to fully reimburse the rancher for his or her loss.

    I

  114. avatar gline says:

    Can Earthjustice stil sue? or watch numbers go down then put them back on esa? what a depressing thought….

  115. avatar Save bears says:

    Anybody that think the current administration is less of the good ole’ boys school than the past is fooling themselves, you don’t get elected president with out playing the same ole’ game that has been played for years, in my opinion the last president we had that was actually out to reform, was killed and his name was Lincoln…we need to throw both houses out, get rid of the system as it currently stands and start over…

  116. avatar JB says:

    All of this focus on Salazar is misplaced. He isn’t going to change anything. If you want things to change, go to your legislators and write to the administration directly. Most Federal lands are managed under the BLM and FS, who are supposed to manage public lands for livestock grazing under NFMA and FLPMA. Change these laws and you change the rules.

  117. gline,

    Of course, Earthjustice can still sue. The brief doesn’t even have to be changed.

    It is as if Kempthorne were still Secretary of Interior as far as this case goes.

    • avatar Heather says:

      of course it is an ongoing lawsuit for years and years… just wanted confirmation so I can have hope… thanks

  118. avatar Save bears says:

    I would fully expect them to sue, I figured that was a given…

  119. avatar Hoosier says:

    Ralph,

    “The Idaho population right now is just fine. The population question has always been what will it be when Idaho is done with the killing?”

    The logical answer to the would be this simple math (current – controlled = after math) what are those numbers? As you state that the current population is just fine is this objective because of your position or this a number that far exceeds original expectations. I think that the latter is the case and the wolf exceeds all expectations post re-intro.

    Why do you feel the wolf should remain protected when science retains that there are ready to prove themselves? If delisted and you think current #’s are where they need to be then, what are your efforts to forward this information onto lawmakers, citizens, and F&W to allow these such #’s to remain stable and be considered the control?

    When wolves were orignally brought back what #’s were called for? It seems that whatever the exacts they exceeded.

    Don’t mean to drill with questions, but one final. What is your postionson using aircraft to case, capture, collar, and dart wolves? I understand the study aspect, but take a look at the stress the animal is put through not to mention that many of the collars are not as reliable as planned. I personally feel that is a way to short cut on hard work and hard evidence. I know that this is a bit far out, however what you have taken from a wolf once trackable is a piece of its spirit. What makes a wolf a wolf elusive, wild, distant, free, and secret is all gone once captured.

    Take the wolf for example a top preditor and very respected by its prey. These animals track by following day in day out, working as team, studying their prey, testing the prey, and patiently waiting. You sure don’t see them out waving a tracker in the air or wait you do their nose, ears, eyes, and will to survive. We lost sight of our own vision and now we fight to establish that which we do no know. It is exceptable to invade the wolf if it is for science, but anything else is not permitted by the wolf crowd.

  120. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    The question is whether an immediate injunction is sought, which as far as I know will depend on whether Idaho pulls the trigger on the Clearwater slaughter they’ve promised. If not the injunction, it seems to me there’s a straight forward case for summary judgement. The rule is on face illegal in a number of respects

  121. avatar John says:

    I guess that emotional based knee jerk reactions, are visable on both ends of the spectrum of the wolf issue. I feel like I’m reading Little Red Riding Hood in reverse, on this Blog. Have any of you people even seen a Wolf in the wild? The jellystone doesn’t count. I mean with your own eyes in the forest or place where the wolves actually live???
    I admire people who can see the whole picture and have open minds. Wolves are wonderous animals and have had a great success here in Idaho. I Just can’t understand why some people won’t open there minds a little and understand that wolves need to be managed. I think it’s kind of cute, to call killing wolves( lethal control) for years Ralph when it’s the USFWS doing the sniping from helecopters. Then rename the same activity when the State agency lays plans, to Bloodbath , Slaughter ( enter any other emotion provocator here). Come on people, Wolves have already been managed and will continually need to be managed. Because they are an awesomely intelligent prolific animal that doesn’t need you or me to dode over them anymore. Let the ESA work!! What you are essentially doing is destroying the chance of wolves in the future to be reintroduced elsewhere. By whining and sueing when the Science supports delisting you are inhibiting support that could be garnered elsewhere where habitat would support healthy populations of wolves. Look at the example of Maine are they to think that the same emotionally driven resistance to delisting will not impact them. I wonder where there resistance comes from??? So ask yourselves are you really helping the wolves expand? Sadly you may actually be an foe. Food for thought.

  122. avatar meadow says:

    When you kill a wolf, you may be disrupting the entire pack (ie. family) It may break up, lose its territory, and predation patterns may be altered so that more livestock is targeted. No one eats wolf. Killing one and calling it “sport” just means you’re looking for another kind of taxidermy. When you say “management”, you are using a non-emotional word to stand in for that killing. And because of the irrational hatred in some quarters for wolves, a lot of wolves are going to die in a short time. That sounds like a bloodbath and slaughter to me.

  123. John,

    I have a couple of points in response. “Management” should mean more than killing something, and it certainly means more than killing when game managers are speaking about animals other than wolves.

    “Management” of wolves as the phrase is used is just a euphemism. It doesn’t have to be, however. The phrase is used to fool those paying little attention that more than just killing is going on.

    The routine killing of wolves for unacceptable behavior from the human viewpoint — “control” — a term which I have always pointed out is an euphemism too, is one thing. Control generates controversy from time to time. It generates more now than in the past because the agencies now seem to welcome it rather than regard it as a mark of failure; failure being dead livestock and dead wolves.

    The current controversy is not about this routine killing of wolves kind of management, however. It is about the planned quantum leap in the amount of killing.

    I think “slaughter” is the appropriate word. When we send cattle to the slaughterhouse, we don’t say we are managing the cattle or controlling them. They are being killed so they can be turned in meat and other products for people and pets to eat and otherwise use. Often the term “meatpacking” is used as a euphemism, but a that another euphemism that help people forget that meat is a dead animal. It also helps some wax eloquent about non-human animals’ cruelty to kill and eat other animals.

  124. avatar Wolfy says:

    No bones about it; many “control” agents are chomping at the bit to settle the score with the “outsiders” (read: enviros, govt, lefties, whatever) trying to tell them what they can and can not do with wildlife. Wildlife Services is just the killing arm of the industrial livestock/ag controlled USDA. Proper management has nothing to do with it; WL Services is going to slaughter any hope of stable wolf populations occurring in the areas deemed off-limits by the industry folks. Pure and simple. Whether its in WY, ID, MT, southern WI, or lower MI, they want to say “screw you” to anyone or anything that gets in their way. What a world we live in. We had a moron leading this country for 8 years and many would like to continue his destructive path. Pathetic.

  125. avatar John says:

    Well I will concede that what The IDFG plans to do, Kill wolves in the LOLO, does not appeal to me in the same way as fair chase. Unfortunately they are left with little choice given that the whole fair chase deal was halted when the injunction was placed. They obviously feel that predictabley several groups will sue and that if they wait to kill wolves until the fall, it won’t happen. And as part of the objective to save another wildlife species wolves numbers need to be scaled back in that area. Mabey if there was more coordination and honesty between interested groups, they would be darting and transporting wolves instead of killing them. Maine would be calling asking for some wolves. The problem is everyone sees that it’s a can of worms they don’t want,because of how you folks are acting right now. They don’t want to lose control of there own states ability to manage the animals within it’s borders just because they accept wolves. It’s really unfortunate for the wolves cause they can’t help the bitter taste you folks put in the mouth of wouldbe recovery states. I know there are some well meaning souls here but why not approach the goal of recovery with fresh eyes and see where real gains can be made for wolf recovery throughout the united states.

  126. John,

    Killing the wolves in the Lolo has always been the goal of northern Idaho Fish and Game commissioners. As far as I can tell, it was never planned to be a hunt to do it. The idea has been Wildlife Services will do it because they can find the wolves.

    However, it isn’t the Lolo wolves that irritates me nearly so much as the plan to kill 26 “bad” wolf packs in Idaho. These packs have been determined as bad even though they haven’t necessarily done anything. The way they were selected is not public knowledge. I suspect each one has one or more powerful livestock interests who simply doesn’t want any wolves in the nearby area.

  127. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    John – where do you come up with the notion that wolf supporters reading this blog have never seen a wolf in the wild? Maybe you need to go back through the archives and find out how much in error your statement is.

    I stopped keeping track of how many different days I had observed wolves in Central Idaho after the 100th time over a year ago.

    Yesterday, a couple of hundred people had the opportunity to watch the Phantom Hill wolves east of Sun Valley, Idaho, as the wolves napped on a high rugged ridge in the Pioneer Mountain foothills. These people already live with elk, mountain lions, coyotes, fox, and now are embracing a beautiful pack of black wolves that have settled in to feast on the plentiful herds of elk.

    The group I work for – Boulder-White Clouds Council – has hosted dozens of wolf field trips for free for hundreds of people over the past eight years. In 2008, we saw wolves on almost every outing.

    We also see every day during the livestock grazing season on our public lands, the harmful impacts to the streams and natural values done by cattle and sheep. Sheep often get lost or are left behind. If a wolf kills one or two, several wolves could die. It’s the livestock industry that’s responsible for over a 100 wolves being shot by Wildlife Services in 2008, yet the ranchers no longer have to do anything to protect their livestock from wolves. If IDFG ever launches its wolf hunting season, hunters could kill up to 426 wolves or over half the wolves in Idaho. So much for a new day with a new administration. It’s business as usual in the West.

  128. avatar Travis says:

    JIM T……In your previous post you stated advocate groups are calling for the return to a more balanced ecosystem with “Native”predator and prey populations.
    It is my understanding that the wolf we have now is a non-native Canadian Timberwolf. If we wanted the native wolf back to Idaho it would have to be the much smaller and less lethal Grey Wolf.

  129. avatar Save bears says:

    Travis,

    That is a myth, that has been perpetuated by those against wolves…it is amazing that people still believe that so called “Canadian Wolves” are different than the wolves that inhabited this ecosystem 100 years ago…

  130. avatar John says:

    Ralph, where is this list of 26 so called bad wolf packs? Does it give the location of the packs? I actually think that if wolves are hunted some will disperse to areas they are protected and populate new niches of habitat. I haven’t done the research yet, just thinking out loud. If idaho wolves disperse into Washington, Oregon and Utah will they have a haven there or will they be hunted there too?

  131. avatar Barb says:

    Something that needs to be brought up by those suing the feds for wolf delisting is the killers look upon all animals including predators — as being “the same.” Like apples in a basket.

    This is where their actions are horribly FLAWED — if they shoot and kill the alpha wolf, this will affect the pack in different ways than if they shoot the other wolves, the female, etc.

    These predator control agents are outrageously ignorant.

  132. avatar Barb says:

    Wolf haters especially in Wyoming but other states like to say that these “Canadian wolves are much larger” than the original wolves in the lower 48. They may be, as their territory is much larger with more prey to hunt, etc, etc.

    I think a good response is “Well, OK, then go find some smaller wolves to transplant to Wyoming instead. Oh, sorry, I forgot they were nearly exterminated.”

    What goes around, comes around.

    It’s just so ironic that westerners are usually so much more progressive on social issues, etc.

    But they’re incredibly still in the 1800’s when it comes to co-existing with wildlife and predators!

    We need to get the mentality of lethal control out of the West.

  133. avatar Salle says:

    But Barb,

    they still believe in manifest destiny, you have to get them past that before you can make any progress with the animal factor…. there is that superiority complex thing and it’s hard to get some folks to “get it” because it’s based in idiology, and those are hard nuts to crack…

  134. avatar Barb says:

    Yes, Salle, they need to ‘get over themselves.’

    They’re really not as important as they think in the grand scheme of things.

    The earth would go on if all humans disappeared… and it would be healthier too…. by our very nature, we pollute it. Realizing this, you’d think more humans would start respecting the fact that we are living in their homes; not the other way around.

    But they’ll point to the Bible and say that man is “above” everything. This is actually a perversion of the Bible, as man is supposed to be the “steward” of the earth and its inhabitants.

  135. avatar JB says:

    “It’s just so ironic that westerners are usually so much more progressive on social issues, etc.”

    Barb: In which part of the West do you live? I lived in northern Utah and spent a fair bit of time in southern Idaho as well. In my experience westerners are NOT very progressive on social issues.

  136. avatar Ken Cole says:

    Travis,
    The wolves in the northern Rockies are the same as those that were here previously. Wolves, as we have recently seen in Colorado, disperse long distances and there was no real division between areas with regard to breeding.

    Their size is no different either.

    I’m trying to come up with hard info on the size question and I have seen it some years ago but can’t find it.

    Here is a post that Ralph posted last year. I put together a excel file of all of the public info about wolves sizes from the reintroduced wolves. It puts to rest the 200 lb wolf myth.

    http://wolves.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/a-complete-table-of-yellowstone-wolves-1995-2008/

  137. avatar Ken Cole says:

    “In my experience westerners are NOT very progressive on social issues.”

    I agree whole heartedly!

  138. avatar Save bears says:

    “In my experience westerners are NOT very progressive on social issues.”

    I will agree 100% as well.

    Barb,

    Man is part of the greater scheme of things, I will not dilute my status as a human because some believe we don’t matter, that is a straw man argument and runs along the same lines as some of the more radical groups that advocate man killing himself off so the world can prosper, we have evolved along with every single other species on this planet..

    When you realize WE are part of the plan, and we have the power to come up with solutions you will be far better off…

  139. avatar John says:

    Does that count San Francisco?? he he

  140. avatar Barb says:

    I’m originally from the midwest — there was never any hysteria there about wild animals as long as I can remember. I’m in the Denver suburbs in a more rural area, so I guess I’m looking at it from that perspective as far as social issues. Denver-ites love and embrace wildlife for the most part. 70% of Coloradoans want wolves in the state too.

  141. avatar Save bears says:

    I will add, there are solutions out there, but as long as both sides are at each others throats, that solution will not be revealed to us…we are living in our homes and will continue to live in our homes as long as populations continue to expand…

    We are part of the system of life on this planet…you might yearn for a day when all things can live in harmony with no problems, but your living a pipe dream! Inter species strife has existed since day one!

  142. avatar John says:

    Barb, didn’t you hear about the female wolf from yellowstone that dispersed to within 150 miles of Denver this winter?

  143. avatar Barb says:

    SaveBears- I’m not suggesting we kill ourselves off and we are part of the system. My point was simply that we aren’t as important as we think we are — i.e., manifest destiny and all that crap….the earth is the center of the universe (people used to think)…. as soon as we start realizing that we are not the CENTER of everything but a PART of it, we will be much better off.

    Religious zealots will vehemently disagree with that, saying man is “superior” to the animals. We’re not “superior,” we’re “different.” We do have problem-solving abilities to a higher level — unfortunately we choose to push our own views on everyone else and nothing gets done, so I do appreciate the fact that this blog tries to find middle ground.

  144. avatar Barb says:

    John,

    I hadn’t heard that! She is certainly welcome here — I wonder what she is looking for? She has lots of friends with me and of course, WildEarth Guardians….

  145. avatar Save bears says:

    Barb,

    Man is just as important as any other species on this earth….not more, not less, and I don’t subscribe to the we dominate all things, but there is nothing going on now that has not gone on for millions of years, each species dominates other species, it starts at the microscopic level…your just as guilty of pushing your views as those who disagree with you…and then I will add their are those here that won’t see opposing viewpoints without mocking and condescending answers!

    I often see the words ignorant, moron, stupid, etc thrown around here..

  146. avatar Salle says:

    Yeah but Barb has a point…

    We are the only specie that willfully pollutes its environment and poisons its body ~ think cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, coal burning, murcury and lead in everything, etc. ~ and if we happen to kill ourselves off, the rest of the species will do much better without us. It is where we’re headed at present and I don’t see any obvious stopping point for that taking place in the near future… do you? The most likely solution that is best for all the other life forms on the planet is the extinction or MASSIVE REDUCTION of our population. Personally, I have no sympathy for humans but that’s just my feeling on it, I can’t agree that we, especially Americans, will do anything that either reduces that probability unless we have a major depopulating event or series of events, then, maybe, we will actually do somethng that is of redeeming value for all the other life forms on the planet, but probably only because we see that it will benefit us.

    We also need to swear off the religion of money, I wonder when and how that will happen, if ever…

    We (humans) have no other collective intellect beyond the drive for superiority in all things ~ above all other things and that will be our downfall to the very end. Doesn’t matter which continent you’re on or from.

  147. avatar Save bears says:

    sorry, there not their…

  148. avatar Save bears says:

    Right Salle,

    a straw man point!

  149. avatar Salle says:

    But Save Bears,
    “…there is nothing going on now that has not gone on for millions of years”

    Excuse me for noticing but you seem to have ignored the whole industrial age thing… THAT would be the turning point when humans became less anamored of the animal kingdom and at that point decided, backed by idiological concepts, began cruising down the path of total domination and distruction by various means.

  150. avatar Save bears says:

    Salle,

    Industrialization began long before the 1800’s it started when humans began using tools to dominate their environment and other species..

    Anyway, different concepts different ideals, run rampant around here…

    Back to our regularly scheduled programing!

  151. avatar Barb says:

    Well, man has been dominating and suppressing everything around him since the beginning of time.

    One of my favorite quotes:

    “The root problem in the relationship between humans and Nature is our pathological drive to domesticate the land and to destroy those wild animals that do not accept our overlordship.” — Dave Foreman, president of The Rewildling Institute.

  152. avatar John says:

    Yeah Salle, I’m sure your right, thats why we study all kinds of species with new technology, know more about their habits , needs, bleeding cycles and distribution. And even have this ESA to protect any species deemed to be in trouble. Horrible, irresponsible humans!

  153. avatar Salle says:

    So now who’s being condescending? It’s not a “straw man point” as you claim. It’s what is staring us in the face and some, apparently like you Save Bears, refuse to recognize it ~ the 200kazillion pound elephant in the room – so to speak.

    I’d like some proof of your claim, please. And I want real evidence that my claim is false or made of straw.

  154. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    I’d say it was ancient Mesopotamia, at the dawn of agriculture

  155. avatar Save bears says:

    Salle, I can’t offer you any real proof other that as two separate humans, we have different ideals on the subject, now is that real, you tell me, I recognize your opinion, and with my superior intellect as a human choose to not accept it..that’s the only “evidence” I can offer! My disagreement with your point of view is as real as yours of mine..

  156. avatar Save bears says:

    Brian,

    As I said, I believe it was when humans learned to use tools to dominate their environment as well as other species..

  157. avatar Salle says:

    “Industrialization began long before the 1800’s…”

    I don’t recall where I stated a date or time…

    It was when we started mass producing things and polluting the air and water, maybe that’s where you came up with the arbitrary date you accuse me of stating, however. I wasn’t trying to be condescending or acusatory or mean, but you seem to be on a tear today, Save bears and John.

    Having lived under the industrial idiology and not felt comfortable with it, I decided that I want to live closer to the rest of the natural world and have chosen to do so. The largest part of my carbon footprint is this computer and the energy that it took to build it and send out this signal… and you?

    I think the biggest problem is the lack of respect, for ourselves, other humans and the other life forms on the planet. So what if you have studied the other life forms, what was the intent? To have a better understanding of how to manipulate them and test our concoctions on them so we won’t suffer by using them? Or to make a profit from them in some way? Be honest with yourself about this. You are the only one who needs confirmation on this, I don’t. Can you look yourself in the eye, in the mirror, and honestly tell yourself what you just insisted is truth to me is really that and believe yourself? Honestly?

  158. avatar Barb says:

    I certainly hope you are being facetious, Save Bears by your comment to Salle:

    I recognize your opinion, and with MY SUPERIOR INTELLECT as a human choose to not accept it.

    If you really want to discuss intellect, I say that those who use logic AND compassion are the most intelligent species of all.

    Logic only is for computers.
    Compassion only is for…..?

  159. avatar Barb says:

    Wow, good Salle 🙂

  160. avatar Salle says:

    I wonder how you can judge that your intellect is superior… compared to what or whom? Me, all other humans, all the folks you come into contact with, all the other species, George W. Bush or…?

  161. avatar Save bears says:

    Well Salle,

    I live pretty remote on a battery powered system that collects its energy from solar, so I think my carbon foot print is as small as I can make it, I do have a phone line as well as a computer, because it is required for my work..

    Yes, I can honestly say, my opinion of your views are as valid as yours are of mine..

    But for the most part, I don’t care what you think of my ideals, or my opinion, but it is obvious mine of you has struck a cord..

    I, nor John seem to be on any more of a terror than you are today, we have far differing opinions on the solutions to the ills of the world and that does not seem to set well with you…you may have not been trying to be condescending or accusatory, but your message betray otherwise…

  162. avatar Salle says:

    Thanks Barb.

  163. avatar Save bears says:

    My statement about SUPERIOR INTELLECT as a human, was not directed to say anything about other humans, but to say we do have a superior intellect to most other species on the earth, we make our own problems as well as our own solutions to most situations..

    I was not claiming to be superior to anybody on this blog or otherwise…but I can see both of you have chosen to read it that way..

  164. avatar Salle says:

    Really? Perhaps you might look into the dictionary and and observe your choice of terms…
    Glad I have the wherewithall to be polite whether we agree or not. If asking you to justify your attack was condescending or acusatory, might I suggest that you spend a little more time with English learning tools and be a little more cautious with your terminology thereafter. I was not being condescending, though you chose to view it that way, sorry for your misunderstanding.

    Bye y’all… I have other conversations that are more respectful of differing ideas to participate in…

  165. avatar Save bears says:

    Anyway, I think we have said about as much as we can say, based on our differing opinions of the solutions to the problems, we will continue to go round and round, and do nothing but make each other mad..

    So I will continue to work along my path and you along yours and hopefully one of us is right..

  166. avatar Save bears says:

    What in the world is it with people on this blog, we all understand it is a pro wildlife as well as pro environment blog, but when someone else says they disagree with methods or means of another a few around here go completely bonkers and run away…the problems are obvious, the solutions are not quite so obvious…..geeze..

  167. avatar Save bears says:

    And Salle as far as you being polite, I find many of your posts to be about as impolite as I have ever seen…and I, by reading others responses to you seem to feel the same..

  168. avatar Barb says:

    I don’t think Salle has “run away” but instead has chosen to voice her views elsewhere for the time being.

    I am glad you clarified that you were speaking of “humanity
    having a superior intellect; the way your sentence reads is confusing.

    Are you actively engaged in research as your profession right now SaveBears?

    Actually, this blog is much more polite than others I’ve seen. We have people like Ryan, animal huggers such as myself, and those in the sciences. That’s pretty much the full spectrum I would say.

    But you have to admit this statement of yours is a little arrogant: “…I don’t care what you think of my ideals, or my opinion, but it is obvious mine of you has struck a cord…”

    I DO care what others think of my opinions. It’s important. If no one cares what anyone else thinks, how can anyone expect to resolve anything? Those are the fundamental principles of problem solving — to “care about” and respect others opinions and have an understanding of why they might feel the way they do about your ideals — i.e., putting oneself in another’s shoes. Everyone struggles with it — I really struggle trying to understand Ryan’s points of views about coyotes, etc. I have a hard time relating.

  169. avatar HeyJoe says:

    Can I ask, perhaps, an ignorant question?

    Why does delisting an animal require there to also be a “hunt” on them? Why can’t they only be controlled if they are predating on ranches and such? If there are so many wolves in one area then it would seem that they would be more instances of cattle (or what have you) predation thus the population in that section would be able to withstand a few ranchers (or what have you) taking them out as they cause trouble. Right?
    Then you don’t have to worry about depleting an unstable population elsewhere just for the hell of it. Just in case.

  170. avatar Save bears says:

    Barb,

    Yes, I am actually involved in research right now to do with some feasibility studies concerning historical ranges of American Bison, it is very interesting stuff, not that I believe that much will come of it, but it may in the future…

    My statement about caring, was just what it is, I have my own opinions, I read and listen to what others post or say, but I still have my ideals, it is the basis of my life, I debate points of views with many friends quite often, I am not mad at them, they are not mad at me, we just have different ideas on what we believe are solutions to the current situation concerning wildlife in the country.

    I look at it from what I believe to be an honest as well as realistic standpoint based on where we currently reside in history, we can’t go back to what it was, so how do we come up with a compromise that makes the majority of the parties involved happy?

    Of course I have dealt with many that were raised in the west and have very strong viewpoints on wildlife, livestock and how each fits in the scheme of things, I am not a livestock supporter, but I understand their position, especially when dealing with 3rd, 4th and 5th generation ranchers, a lot of them don’t know anything different, they were raised the way they were from day one…

    When it comes down to it, we are talking about over 200 years of life for some of these people, they do have an investment in their livestock, they have paid their price to enjoy their lifestyle, and then I look at the current conservation movement in this country, which many have not been involved in for more than a few years, so your looking at a new thing on the landscape that many feel are threatening them..

    I am all for getting livestock off of public lands, because I believe the public’s wishes should prevail and it is better use of the public resource. Although I don’t agree with killing wolves just because they are wolves, I try to understand that as well, most of these people don’t remember it being any other way, wolves bad, livestock good(not my words but how many feel)

    I am all for Bison being able to free range on historical lands, but know that they will not be able to range on more than just a fraction of what they were in the past, but would like to see more flexibility to allow them to…

    I also understand, we are a big part of the grand scheme and have been for thousands of years, good or bad, we are part of it, fortunately we have the power to change things more than any other species on the planet, and I do hope we make the right choices and all parties learn that we can co-exist with each other..

    I do know that throwing around terms like moron, ignorant, stupid and a few other terms that get thrown around here as well as other chat/blog systems, does nothing to further the situation..

    I also think that many here have the same desires, we just have different opinions on how to achieve those desires…but the goal is the same..

    Anyway, far to long a post, but just trying to explain my side a bit..

  171. HeyJoe,

    You ask a very smart question because in fact delisting a species rarely, if ever, has meant a quick hunt on them, or flat out killing of them to reduce their population.

    Alligators were a great success story, and before long they were being hunted. Grizzly bears might see a hunt, but it will be small.

    The wolf is the only plant or animal I am aware of where upon delisting states have said “now we need to significantly reduce their population.”

    This is utterly contrary to the intent of the Endangered Species Act, and one reason why Brian Ertz may be right when he says the judge could decide the issue with a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

  172. avatar HeyJoe says:

    Very strange. Thank you for answering so quickly.
    I just don’t know how the wolves went from STILL being listed yet somehow their numbers are out of control? Makes no sense. Why weren’t they delisted when they were at sustainable capacity? How did a listed animal suddenly overpopulate?
    Since bears are my thing, why can’t they let the bears overpopulate and THEN delist them? :::smirk::
    Also, like I said about the “troublemakers” and the natives or the ranchers keeping the numbers down. I mean if there is SO much livestock predation then they should be able to keep the numbers in check right? Dunno, just curious.

  173. HeyJoe,

    I answered quickly because I had to approve your participation in the forum (the rules for a first time poster). Having done that, I thought I’d answer (also because I recognized your email from another list)

    I have more so say. Wolf numbers are only out of control to those who didn’t want any, or at best a museum population of them from the very beginning.

  174. avatar HeyJoe says:

    Yes, that is plain in almost every aspect of delisting a carnivore it seems.
    Considering at one point in the past I thought Wyoming was unnecessarily gun happy and to find that they are holding up the works is rather amusing.
    You know I have stayed away from the boards because I had a tendency to make statements (this may still occur) on very little merit and based on my own “emotional” bias. I needed to educate myself, talk to opposing “forces” and have found that this has changed my views on certain issues. I am proud to say that I have never been an extremist but this can be a difficult position to NOT be as the fence can be quite uncomfortable to sit on. I can be a bit anxious and passionate at times. I will try to stifle myself.
    ANYway, I look forward to participating in the future.
    Personally I don’t think any animal should be delisted until they have reached far beyond what scientist believe their number should be. One, they are always (?) off, and while this miscalculation could be either higher or lower, higher is still safer. As we have seen with Grizzlies. There are some people who are foaming at the mouth for a hunting season, even though their chances at receiving a permit is extremely low, their hopes that in the future bear numbers will continue to rise allowing them greater chance in the future to shoot one. BUT they just don’t reproduce at a fair clip. So I would think they shouldn’t even bring the delisting of Grizzlies to the table until the numbers are extremely high. Too many bad scenes for bears out there these days. I’m using bears because I know a great deal more on them than wolves.

    I was interrupted while writing this so you may have responded already.

  175. avatar John says:

    Ralph mabey you are right about the population being out of control to those that didn’t want them in the first place. I’m sure some individuals feel that way, but I suggest many more welcome wolves with a population that meets the needs of all user groups. I respect wolves and also welcome them to our forests in numbers that are reasonable. Are the numbers reasonable now? That depends on who you ask and whats at stake. I’m sure those who have a livelyhood that is related to high numbers such as wolf watching expeditions ie wolf tourism feel that there are not nearly enough. On the other hand Outfitters that find it hard to book clients because of lower elk and deer numbers feel there are too many. I wish there were a solution that everyone could agree on but you see the inherit problem with such a solution. All I can say is that the reintroduction goals have been exceeded and if some compromise isn’t met then a precident is set that may actually make it harder for wolves to be excepted elsewhere,where they may thrive. Because of a perception that goals will be adjusted and litigation leveled when someone isn’t satisfied with the original goals.

  176. avatar JimT says:

    I think this is a new record for comments, isn’t it Ralph? Congratulations…VBG…

    For those folks who are wondering if DOW et al will be suing, yes. I wouldn’t be surprised if a TRO was filed on Monday, and a motion for summary judgment filed soon as well. Check out the DOW’s Wildlife Action Fund’s website for updates.

    HeyJoe, there is no legal or regulatory requirement for a hunt when a species is delisted. Eagle is finally delisted, but it is also protected by its own act, and if memory serves (it does that this days with less regularity LOL) and the monitoring program is put in place and is progressing. No, as Ralph implied earlier, this hunt is about the continued hatred of wolves by the grazing community. It is almost as if it is hardwired from birth, a genetic, kneejerk trait.

    Someone said something about “letting the ESA work”. I couldn’t agree more, but again, it has always been the extractive industries of the West who depend on the largesse of the public land subsidies for their businesses who have resisted letting nature takes its course. The ONLY way we were going to get wolves in these states was to agree to fewer protections for an ‘experimental population”. The grazers were steadfast in their refusal to let the wolves come back on their own; they wanted leverage to do the kinds of things they are advocating as we type.

    As Ralph probably remembers from the first days of the fight to get wolves back, there were…and are…strong disagreements within the environmental community about the the use of the EP designation, and what it would mean to the restoration of the species. I can recommend a book by T. McNamee whose title is something the Return of the Wolf to Yellowstone, and Hank Fischer’s book Wolf Wars to highlight some of the pro and con arguments on both sides of the strategy. Doug Smith from Yellowstone way has also written a book in the last year that is worth your hard earned sawbucks. The debate still continues, especially with the disproportionate influence the grazing, and to some extent the sports hunting industry has on the governing bodies of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. I am not sure where I stand after the experience of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho *WIM*…If all experimental population strategies are going to result in is endless killing of wolves based on hatred and politics instead of truly “managing” the populations in biologically and legally sound ways…how fair is that to the wolf species? I would rather see them come down on their own, have the full protection of the ESA and the USFWS officials, and have the enforcment of penalites for killing strictly and strongly enforced in each case. I would be strongly in favor of yanking someone’s grazing permit..if it part of the the scenario…and yanking it for years if not permanently. If the grazing folks want to continue to keep using public lands, obey the laws regardless of your politics, and be prepared to find new work for deliberate ESA violations. The only way to stand up to bullies is to kick them in the….!S!

    For those of you who think the word slaughter is too strong, it is the word of a rancher in Montana who lost some sheep to a wolf pack…one of the hands left them out instead of putting them in the protected paddock, and the wolves were watching. I think the ranch lost over 20 sheep. Comments were exchanged at the local grange about something needing to be done, and those of you who live in these areas understand how much pressure can be brought by neighbors to protect their investments as well. Wildlife Services was brought in, and the pack killed. The rancher saw the carnage, and so much of it was gratuitous violence instead of humane methods being used, the rancher vowed never to let the Wildlife Services on the land again for any reason. The land was private, with substantial though unused federal grazing rights, and so the rancher could do this. It was the rancher’s term..slaughter..and I think for what Idaho and Montana plan, it fits the criteria…unnecessary, deliberately cruel, politically motivated killing of living creatures. Notice the rancher didn’t refer to the killing of the sheep as a slaughter…And yes, I was on the land with other folks listening to the story being told first hand, not some internet story. I won’t use the rancher’s name because this person is already being subjected to harassment by the other ranchers in the area who opposed this attitude of trying to live with wolves. The decision to kill the pack was made regretfully, and now fully realized as a huge mistake. The rancher said from now on, as long as that ranch is in business, the wolves are welcome there.

    Save Bears, you have hit the nail on the head with ranchers. They are 4th and 5th generation ranchers who have known no other life and existence that one that is predicated on a sense of *entitlement* to a lifestyle using the public land resource for shamefully cheap money when compared to private land economies, and they are absolutely convinced these public lands are THEIR LANDS, and no one is going to tell them what to do..not even the very Federal agencies and legislature upon which they are dependant for handouts and radically low fees along with repeated violations of permit conditions being ignored with no accountability.

  177. avatar Travis says:

    Ken Cole…So what you are telling me is that the wolves that are here now are the same subspecies of wolf that was here previously. The wolves are the same size as what was here previously and are not larger due to the fact the come from a more Northerly geographic area?

    I am not trying to be confrontational, just trying to become more informed. As we all know their is a lot of mis-information out there. I am just trying to sift through some of that information.

  178. avatar JEFF E says:

    Travis,
    If I may
    This is an area that has caused never ending controversy in the wolf debate, which in part was caused by the FWS original plan which called out the sub-spices c.l. irremotus as the original inhabitant of the northern Rocky Mountains. This sub-species was originally identified by Stanley P. Young and Edward A Goldman and is described in the book “The Wolves of North America.” The problem with this as it relates to recovery plan was when the territory of this sub-species was put in the plan as a Figure (#2 if I remember rightly),for some unexplained reason the northern boundary appeared to be the Canadian border and hence has caused massive confusion and the ever popular misnomer “Canadian Wolf”.
    In actuality the northern boundary as decided by Young and Goldman appears to have been the Athabasca river which by coincidence flows right thru Hinton, Alberta, Canada, the area around which the majority of wolves that were captured for re-introduction were captured. The problem with that boundary is the question as to what would make that particular geographic feature any more of a boundary to wolves than an imaginary line on a map like the border between Canada and the U.S. and points out the biggest problem with sub-species designation of wolves in a nut shell.
    Today we have genetics research which has strongly indicated that instead of the 24+ sub-species of wolf in North America at the time of Young and Goldman and even up to the time that the Government laid the ground work for re-introduction in the late 70’s and early eighties, it is generally thought that there are only 4-5 sub-species of wolf in North America.

  179. avatar JEFF E says:

    Those sub-species are c.l. occidentalis, c.l. nubilus, c.l. arctos c.l. baileyi, and as a caveat possibly c.l. lycaon.
    And does not include Alaska which I should have said before.

  180. avatar JEFF E says:

    The present and historical wolves in the reintroduction are variously argued to be nubulis or occidentalis.

  181. Travis,

    I’m not Ken, but this question has come up many times in this forum and elsewhere.

    The wolves reintroduced were as close as possible as what was probably here before their extirpation.

    The 1995 wolves came from near Jasper National Park, which is not far from Idaho, and an easy migration distance for wolves through wild country.

    Given the well documented long-range migrations of the new population of wolves, there is no doubt that wolves were migrating up and down the Rocky Mountains for thousands of years. That is a situation that does not serve to generate different subspecies. That requires isolation of some kind.

    It was asserted that the original wolf here was canis lupis irremotus. Biologists no longer believe there was really any such sub-species. It was a mistaken classification, and at the time of, and shortly after reintroduction, there were courts cases on this. Proponents of the irremotus view lost.

    Nowhere in any scientific literature is the name “Canadian” grey wolf mentioned as a sub-species. This is a fable made up entirely in the backrooms, cafes and bars of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

    The wolves from near Jasper were chosen not just because they were genetically similar to what was before. They also preyed on the same animals — mostly elk, but also deer and moose.

    The 1996 batch came from further north near Ft. Saint John, B.C. One could make an argument that the greater distance could result in less similarity. In terms of prey utilization, these B.C. wolves preyed on bison as well as elk, deer, and moose. That is one reason they were selected.

    Folks should be aware that advances in in genetics today are very rapid, and that includes wolf genetics. The entire concept of subspecies is undergoing revision.

    The current wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming seem to be typical size for the grey wolves known in early days, but accurate measurements during those days are few.

    I have been posting the size of radio-collared Yellowstone wolves since 1995 when I ask for their data. This is public information. I have noticed a slight decrease in size. I think it is due to the fact that the wolves now are less well fed.

  182. I see Jeff E answered too. Yes, c.l. occidentalis, c.l. nubilus, c.l. arctos c.l. baileyi, and possibly c.l. lycaon are the generally accepted subspecies.

    Notice no c.l. irremotus.

    Many biologists now break out lycaon as a separate species, not sub-species, but that is an issue for southeast Canada.

  183. avatar Barb says:

    SaveBears, I think it’s good how you try to understand the livestock producers point of view. You said “they have paid their price to enjoy their lifestyle” — are you speaking of in the past or now?

    The native predators whose God-given land the livestock owners are using have certainly paid their price as well, and it’s a much higher price.

    Wolf advocates need to understand more, and livestock owners need to learn to use non lethal methods to control predation as they can’t expect the land to be “sanitized” of predators for “their convenience.”

    Livestock owners have been enjoying a kind of Disney-esque environment with the taxpayers paying for “Wildlife Services.”

    With a more contemporary view of wildlife, and more people wanting things to be more in their natural state as far as the animals, livestock producers will be under much more scrutiny and pressure to use non-lethal methods.

  184. avatar Layton says:

    “Given the well documented long-range migrations of the new population of wolves, there is no doubt that wolves were migrating up and down the Rocky Mountains for thousands of years.”

    Yep!! That was part of the criteria used to get the wolves introduced here in the three state area.

    BUT!!

    The latest tactic used in the last suit against delisting is that wolves are UNABLE to migrate enough to get a “genetic exchange” going with the Yellowstone wolves!!

    Who says you can’t have it BOTH ways —— if you get the right judge??

  185. avatar Travis says:

    Does the ESA grant protection based on population estimates throughout the native range of a species or only in the lands encompassing the United States.

  186. avatar Ryan says:

    “I’m in the Denver suburbs in a more rural area, so I guess I’m looking at it from that perspective as far as social issues. Denver-ites love and embrace wildlife for the most part. 70% of Coloradoans want wolves in the state too.”

    Barb,
    I hate to break it to you, there is nothing rural about the suburbs of Denver. The real rural west is little towns like gillette WY, Weeber ID, Kalisbell MT, etc all towns that are hours drive from major metropolitan areas. As for the lack of fears about animals in the Mid west. Its pretty simple the midwest has been tamed for over 150 years. There are no major animals there that can hurt you. Coyotes have been killed in the midwest on almost a larger scale than in the west along with all the cougars, bison, most of the elk, and most every critter that caused farmers any major amount of trouble.

    There are lots of issues we’ll never agree on. I dont want to see coyotes go extinct, but I see no special value in them individually and removing them is no different than slaughtering a cow. I see no special value in any animal, I see special value in protecting wild places etc.

    I’m glad the wolves were delisted, hopefully Idaho can do their population control before the next activist judge puts a stay on the delisting.

  187. avatar Ryan says:

    Barb,

    You don’t have one clue about day to day life as a rancher or ranchhand. Its tough work that never ends. They should have every right to protect their stock on privateland. Non Lethal control methods cost 10X what lethal control measures do and in many cases do more harm than good to the land as a whole.

  188. avatar Save bears says:

    Travis,

    ESA has no authority on foreign soil, but there are certain foreign governments we have cooperative agreements with concerning some species.

  189. avatar meadow says:

    If ranchers had to pay for their own lethal control instead of dumping the cost onto taxpayers in the form of the “wildlife services” agency, I daresay non-lethal control would NOT be more expensive.

  190. avatar Travis says:

    Save Bears,

    Shouldn’t the wolves have been protected under something else than the ESA. Its my understanding they are far from endangered in Canada. I understand this was a re-introduction plan, but they were not endangered. They had only been extirpated as some put it from an area only, as a whole population they weren’t endangered were they? And if they weren’t endangered how is it they came under the control of the ESA to begin with?

    I am not familiar with the ESA as a whole, please be patient with my questions.

  191. avatar Save bears says:

    Meadow,

    I would say, I bet most ranchers would prefer to do their own control! and not cost the taxpayer a dime…and I am not advocating anything here, but just making an observation..I know quite a few ranchers in many states and most of them prefer to take care of their own situations with the least amount of government intervention possible…

    But at the center, yes, non lethal control is more expensive no matter who is doing it..

  192. avatar Save bears says:

    Travis,

    You are correct they are not endangered in parts of their historic range which is Canada and Alaska, very similar to grizzly bears, they are not endangered in Alaska but were classified as threatened in the lower 48.

    Wolves only enjoyed full ESA protections in parts of the range in the lower 48, south of a certain area in Montana and Idaho, they were considered experimental/non-essential populations without full ESA protection, but a modified rule that was specifically crafted to get them re-introduced.

    When it comes down to it, ESA can be very complicated depending on who the competing parties involved are. Of course as with many other laws in this country, ESA has become prostituted over time.

  193. avatar Ryan says:

    “If ranchers had to pay for their own lethal control instead of dumping the cost onto taxpayers in the form of the “wildlife services” agency, I daresay non-lethal control would NOT be more expensive.”

    Meadow,

    Lethal control of coyotes on private land done by ranchers is pretty cheap. Maybe 20 or 30.00 a year in ammo and a few spotlights. Ranchers usually call in Wildlife service to kill wolves because the red tape is too scary for them to risk taking care of the problem themselves.

  194. avatar Travis says:

    Thanks for the clarification Save Bears.

  195. avatar Merdoch says:

    Travis,

    The key is the ESA does not merely apply to species literally in danger of becoming extinct everywhere. If they are endangered or extirpated over a large enough portion of their historical range, this is enough to generally warrant an ESA listing. You can’t say because there are still a bunch in Alaska you don’t have to worry if they are potentially about to wiped out everywhere else in the US. (Historically there were basically always a bunch of Bald Eagles in Alaska, but they remained listed until there population recovered specifically in the lower 48 states.) Especially with the modern understanding of the law, enough of a drop in a historic part of a species range can warrant an ESA listing for that general area only.

    As far as Canada is concerned, it usually is not considered that heavily under the ESA because its a US specific law. The Bush administration recently tried to argue against an ESA listing because that population of the species was fine in Canada, but its not clear at all that courts are going to buy that argument in most cases. The one exception might be a situation where a population has always been extremely small to the extent it had a natural range at all in the US, while its always mostly been in Canada or elsewhere, but such situations often would depend on a court verdict along the specific details.

    In the case of the Gray Wolf, it historically was around in considerably larger numbers covering most of the US other than Hawaii. This means that even though its in fairly good shape overall for the moment in Alaska and in Canada in general, its highly appropriate for it to remain under an ESA listing at least with regards to most areas of the US.

    My personal view is the Minnesota and Michigan area de-listing makes sense, although I’m troubled that it seems to covered a somewhat broader area that it really should. (There apparently are a few other technical concerns with the delisting, although I personally feel delisting in specific areas does make with with regards to a general way to do things with Gray Wolves.) The primary concern I personally have with Idaho and Montana is Idaho in particular seems much too potentially eager to significantly reduce wolf populations from their current levels, and I also think there are potentially unreasonable assumptions about how many wolves is realistically viable in the area, with the wolf being the scapegoat for other animal numbers in many cases.

    Incidentally I finally decided to stop lurking and post and contribute to the conversations on this blog. I’m a National Park Employee working for a park in Alaska that does have wolves. I’m not going to be much more specific about my job status other than to say job expertise isn’t specifically in biology, so I don’t have to worry about what I post here too much and potentially angering the wrong person.

  196. avatar John d. says:

    Ryan,

    Cheap and, if looked at from the bigger picture, utterly ineffective.

  197. avatar bob jackson says:

    Ryan,

    What ranchers are doing to cattle would be very similar to having someone tieing a gladiators arm behind his back and then trying to defend himself adequately against a fully functioning combatant. The only guy I knew who could overcome this was Russel Crowe in his Gladiator movie.

    Whether it is on private or public lands having cattle with no horns or balls is the same as tieing an old horse to a tree and then waiting for the wolves to come in…and then the rancher crying for restitution and the destruction of all wolves.

    Ranchers have actively turned cattle into pathetic pieces of blubber and thus they have no right to call “wolf”. I say put the blame back on the ones who made the mess, the rancher. Wild cattle did very well in this country as well as South America with predators for 200 years when they were left to their own means of protection.

    This means a need for a normal compliment of males for alerting, distracting and protecting the matriarchal components against large predators …. and well developed social order matriarchal structure for guarding and teaching young how to deal with predators.

    If these so called tough ranchers were exposed for what they are doing to these animals, cutting off their balls and horns and making bthem wimps then I think most of the sympathy would disappear. Ryan, What do you think? Do you think it is fair to defend those who hamstring their animals and then are ouraged at their subsequent death? And I ask you to forget the excuse these ranchers need to do these things because the system makes them do it. Are ranchers that weak of resolve? Can’t they figure out a way to make this an economic plus. I believe they can in any niche market. I guarentee they could hype this protective, self sufficient herd as the most “green” of all. And make twice the money they now do. In the mean time I call all this “cry wolf” as rancher image hypocrisy of the worst kind.

    • avatar Barb says:

      Bob Jackson — I agree with your views completely on this!

      For livestock producers to complain how awful it is to see their emasculated defenseless animals ripped apart left out in the field (for months on end) by being attacked by a natural predator, then sending them to slaughter, as if that is “humane.”

      Such heartfelt compassion for animals.

  198. avatar meadow says:

    If do it yourself predator control is so “cheap”, lets abolish Wildlife Services. That’s about $430 million we can save right there. Ironically, most of that money kills coyotes and wolves are the best coyote control ever invented.

  199. avatar Save bears says:

    Meadow,

    I think the general feeling by both sides is to get rid of Wildlife services, I have seen demands to disband this agency from those on both sides of the issue.

  200. avatar kt says:

    Well – Look here:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19771.html

    Check this out – Cuba is wrapped up in the Omnibus Bill that wimpy Harry Reid is desperately trying to pass. This Bill is diffferent one from the OTHER Omnibus Bill that has a bunch of Public Lands stuff in it – like the awful Forest Health and the Owynee Initiative release of 200,000 acres of WSA to cattle developments.

    BUT – Does anyone know how Idaho’s Senators (or some other wolf-hating Repub. Senator who may be allied with Butch Otter seeking opening Cuba trade so that Simplot can gain access to Cuba’s phosphate) may have voted in this little drama over the Omnibus Bill? Is there a quid pro quo deal of some kind – related to the very coincidental timing of the wolf de-listing by Salazar? Was that done – with the timing being just when this Omnibus Bill was coming to a head – to buy somebody’s vote??? Just asking …

  201. avatar Ryan says:

    Bob,

    No one wants to eat a tough wild cow. The nearly wild longhorns that ran around Texas weren’t fit for table fare and only killed for their hides.
    If you really want to know what I think seeing as how you asked, I think that may quite possibly be the dumbest argument I have seen written on this blog yet.

    Meadow,

    Wildlife services does alot more than just kill coyotes, many of the activities that WS takes on are beneficial to all of us. Taking out birds at airports, removing non native species (i.e. starlings, brown snakes, etc) Removing vectors for disease control etc. Everything is not as black and white as you’d like to think.

  202. avatar Maska says:

    Somebody who knows the USDA wiring diagram better than I might be able to answer this: Isn’t Wildlife Services just the wildlife killing arm of the APHIS (the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)? Isn’t it other branches of APHIS that do the port-of-entry inspections, etc.?

  203. avatar Save bears says:

    Maska,

    Take a look at this link, t has descriptions and information on this agency..

    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/

  204. avatar Maska says:

    Thanks, Save Bears. After a quick perusal of their website, it seems to me that what’s called for is using a scalpel, rather than a chainsaw, on the agency’s budget. There are obviously some useful services provided, but sending agents up in aircraft to shoot wolves and coyotes isn’t one of them. Where are all those fiscally conservative tax watchdogs when we need them?

  205. avatar Ryan says:

    “If do it yourself predator control is so “cheap”, lets abolish Wildlife Services. That’s about $430 million we can save right there. Ironically, most of that money kills coyotes and wolves are the best coyote control ever invented.”

    Meadow,

    In the last full budget break down I could see.. WS budget was 74 million dollars (2006). Included in that budget was removal of several speices not just wolves and coyotes. From what I have read, the totals spent on wolf control averaged about 2-4 million a year. I couldn’t find an exact number on the costs to remove wolves broken out. As for coyotes I don’t know what the total expenses were. I’d like to see that all broken out by species.

  206. avatar bob jackson says:

    Ryan,

    There is a big difference in the toughness and “stringyness” of dysfunctional stressed animals than those with social order infrastructure. The longhorns you refer to were very dysfunctional and the stress build up over the years in these kinds of animals tightens muscles. I full know what old cow or “bull” meat is like. Farmers, including my dad, shot or loaded up a lot of them for one reason or another (they got out or broke legs) and then had them processed at the locker. The dysfunctional cattle today have to be butchered young so as to not allow this stress build up.

    Some farmers with Bess, the family cow, had good meat however.

    You evidently never grew up on a farm or ranch to know the difference. Or maybe you also don’t hunt…or know that a mature dry cow (elk ) from a protected herd is very tasty.

    All that being said, herd animals with social order, even animals being 20 years old have very tender meat if in good health. And it is more nutritious!! A growing body can not concentrate nutrients. Yes, the connective tissue is more developed but this is also where lots of protein is found (it is why the Indians perferred the front quarter over the hind…they gave this hind part to their dogs when a jump or surround provided more than enough of meat) .

    On our farm we butcher and sell mostly mature bison. They are the best. I guarentee it would be the same if we raised Longhorns in Texas or Iowa.

    Stress is chronic in effect as seen in livers of mature bison or cattle. That is why most dysfunctional animal liver has to be thrown away by inspectors. The Longhorn meat you talk about as being tough and stringy was this way because ranchers raised them as multiples of individuals, not as social units. If you read of Catlins hunts for wild cattle in South America you will see what the difference is between these cattle and your Texan Longhorns raised dysfunctionally. And until you learn a bit more about true nutrition and what allows herd animals low stress I would have to classify you as ignorant. There is nothing wrong with this, however, as we all are ignorant in a lot of ways. When either of us ‘attacks’ we both have the right to counter. You did and i feel you left yourself vulnerable with your lack of knowledge on the subject. I’d suggest trying another line of attack.

    As it is, I say for ranchers who want to maintain their “rugged” legacy need to follow through with allowing their cows some defenses …..before they accuse wolves of killing off their lively hood.

  207. avatar meadow says:

    Oops my bad on the wildlife services budget.. That was a multiyear figure. It is closer to “only” $74 million. Add the payments thrown in by states and counties and it is probably over $100 million annually. I’m glad to see so much agreement on ending it.

  208. avatar Ryan says:

    Bob,
    I’ve raised quite a few steers over the years, they’ve all been rather tasty. You are right an old dry cow elk is tough to beat sometimes, although my party killed one on the coast this year that was aged a 14 that was tougher than shoe leather (even after aging it for 5 days in a controlled locker). You know as well as I do why they are castrated, dealing with a field full of bulls is not my idea of fun. Your assertion that cattle have to be killed at a young age because of stress is a bit off. They are killed at a younger age because that is when the maximum yeild starts to decrease. Why let a steer get to 5 years old (pay the expense of feed, lost pasture, etc) when it stops growing appreciably at 2-3 years old. What your proposing though would require all new species of cattle to be brought in. Just as a side note there are no wolves in south america (The Maned wolf is technically not a wolf)

  209. When the IDFG has its wolf season proposal meetings this year, I hope some of you show up to protest the number of wolves that will be authorized for “Harvest”. I attended most of the meetings last year and the only person in on this discussion that showed up was Brian. At the IDFG Jerome, Idaho meeting last year, to set wolf hunting seasons and harvest numbers , there were about 5 wolf supporters and 95 anti- wolf folks that showed up. The IDFG feels they have a 95% approval rating for their proposed wolf plan. You have to be willing to show up and be counted if your opinion is going to matter. None of those 100 wolf watchers from Ketchum , including Lynne Stone, made it to the Jerome meeting (an hours drive from Ketchum) to express their views. There were outfitters and anti-wolf people from as far away as Salmon and Stanley. If the numbers at the Jerome meeting had been 105 wolf supporters vs. 95 anti-wolf people, the IDFG wolf plan might have been different.

  210. avatar Barb says:

    Layton,

    You said we wolf supporters want it both ways.

    In the PAST wolves did travel across the Rockies. Because of development and hostilities, it is TRUE they no longer can.

    Ryan, I respect all of God’s creatures, especially coyotes. It is such a shame you see animals as worthless beings except what they can earn for you. Animals DO have feelings too.

  211. avatar Save bears says:

    Barb,

    I am curious, are you a religious person?

  212. avatar Ryan says:

    “Ryan, I respect all of God’s creatures, especially coyotes. It is such a shame you see animals as worthless beings except what they can earn for you. Animals DO have feelings too.”

    Barb,
    Can you prove that animals have feelings?

    • avatar Barb says:

      Ryan, please prove that YOU have feelings.

      SaveBears: I wouldn’t say I’m “religious” per se with the dogma. But I believe in a higher power and I believe that those who treat humans or animals as mere “things” to be “used” will have to account for it.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        Huh? thats quite possibly your dumbest reply I’ve read yet and thats saying something. WTF do my feelings or lack there of as you assert, have to with whether or not animals have feelings? Are you going to call me liar liar pants on fire or say something along the lines of I’m rubber and your glue next?

      • avatar Barb says:

        Ryan, again, please prove that YOU have feelings.

        Can you do it?

      • avatar Ryan says:

        I know I have feelings its pretty easy to prove, but I’ll ask again what does that have to do with this conversation.

  213. avatar Save bears says:

    Better watch out Ryan, the last time I said something like that I got told the only people that question that, work for research labs! And I got put on the moderators list for a day!

    • avatar Barb says:

      ha-ha, funny SaveBears! BTW, I was on the moderator’s list too that day. 🙂

      Sometimes it’s good to push it a bit though…..

  214. avatar Ryan says:

    Save Bears,

    Thats some funny stuff. Its funny too people love to quote them as gods creatures (I guess it depends on which god you subscribe too) but the bible is riddled with stories of people killing wild animals to protect there familys and flocks.

    • avatar Barb says:

      Ryan, please read “Dominion” by Matthew Scully.

      The Bible also says a woman is “unclean” who is menstrating. And it also says a “donkey” talks. And people are “stoned” to death…. The Bible has “truths” but it was MEN writing it, not God himself.

      Some people interpret the Bible literally; this is incorrect; I feel it was meant to be interpreted figuratively.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        Barb,

        I read an overview of it a while ago. I have no interest in reading any of his work, or supporting him in anyway shape or form. Factory farming is a bad thing, so are alot of other things that go on in this country. Just not worth my time to take up the sign against. As much as they suck, the alternative is seeing more and more privately held undeveloped land turn into spread out versions of the same factory farms. Landscapes completely ruined by pigs rooting around, massive run off etc. I’d much rather see down stream water treatment facilities from factory farms requiring there wast water to be treated than massive chunks of land runied by pig farming.
        Life is not all friendly and nice I’ve accepted that, I just pick and choose my battles.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        So are you saying that God actually wanted his flocks to be eaten by wolves and lions because they are his creatures as well and that all the instructions to protect your flock were just figurative?

        “I believe that those who treat humans or animals as mere “things” to be “used” will have to account for it.”

        Do you have any biblical backing for this assertion or are you just making theories to validate your own feelings?

      • avatar Barb says:

        I’m being completely serious Ryan. Please prove in some way that you have feelings.

        You’re an animal too. You should be able to “prove” you have feelings. Just give me one thing that proves it. That’s all I’m asking for.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        Barb,

        Most of your positions confuse me. Thats an emotion. 🙂 Its pretty easily noted that humans have emotions.

    • avatar Barb says:

      Ryan,

      Again, you are circling around my question: Please give ONE example of how you can PROVE that humans have feelings.

      If you can’t, why not?

      Because you know whatever you say, that animals do it too (specifically mammals); i.e, show fear, ‘snarl’, fight back, show pleasure, etc….

      You haven’t taken philosophy, have you?

      To question if animals have “feelings” is as futile as questioning if humans have feelings.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        “To question if animals have “feelings” is as futile as questioning if humans have feelings”

        Really? I think it becomes more a question of reasons and Logic. Do animals show fear because they have feelings or because it is a conditioned response to stimulus

  215. avatar DB says:

    It’s too bad so many personal comments on this site tend to bury important points like Larry Thorngren’s. Written comments are fine, appeals are great, but showing up at a meeting and expressing a rational, heart felt opinion has got to count for a lot.

  216. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Larry – For the record, I attended the Challis meeting on the wolf hunting plan last Spring, which was an hour from Stanley where I was living, rather than drive all the way to Jerome, which is about 3 hours on winter roads, and would have required staying overnight.

    In December 2007, I did drive from Stanley to Jerome to the Draft IDFG wolf plan meeting. It would not have mattered if 1000 wolf supporters had shown up, the dye was already cast by IDFG. A few days later, I drove from Stanley to Hailey to another meeting on the draft IDFG plan, a meeting that was called because myself and others contacted our County Commissioners and State Representatives to ask that a meeting be held in the Wood River Valley on the Draft Mgt Plan. The comments of wolf supporters at the Hailey meeting fell on deaf ears. We might as well been talking to a fence post.

  217. avatar Ryan says:

    I was at all of the Draft plan meetings for the Oregon Wolf Plan, and lets just say that the Pro Wolf people got the best of ODFW.

  218. avatar kt says:

    Lynne is exactly right about the meetings. Attending one was an act of futility – attending three … she deserves a medal.

    The wolf slaughter was laid out from the beginning. Zero out packs (“knock em back in Nadeau-speak) wherever public lands cows and sheep graze – which is nearly everywhere outside Wilderness and without a lot of trees.

    Scorched earth killing of SOME kind of predator in the north of ID has long been sought. Wasn’t it black bears in the Clearwater that were blamed for all manner of hunting tag depression – before wolves? The gun nut, militia man culture of the gloomy north seems to make the locals (and the Kempthorne and now Otter-appointed Commissioners for IDFG from that region) particularly into killing what they perceive as their “competitors” for “game” …

  219. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Ryan – as a native Oregonian, I’m not at all surprised that the Oregon wolf plan has something good in it for wolves, unlike the spudhead plan, dictated by the Governor, IDFG Commissioners, ranchers and trophy “sportsmen”. Idaho leaders have expressed that they want to be the reddest of the red and they are doing a good job of it.

    • avatar Ryan says:

      The oregon plan is not realistic, the triggers for delisitng at the state level are to extreme as far as range goes. Hence why wolves that show up in the Red part of oregon have a habit of not surviving. Oregon is such a dichotomy of views, dominated by the lieberal PDX/Eugene area. The rest of OR is a a very Red state.

      • avatar Lynne Stone says:

        I was unaware that only residents of Eugene and the Portland metro area are blue, and the rest of Oregon is still very Red. Will have to call up some friends in Bend, LaGrande, The Dalles, and elsewhere, and ask whether they are seeing red or blue these days.

        One way to protect wolves that come to Oregon, would be for Oregon to end the war on coyotes that rednecks (who apparently have nothing better to do) try to kill in one way or another all year long. Then, same rednecks, complain about too many mule deer eating hay or grain crops, or too many rodents.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        There is no complaint about too many mule deer as the populations have crashed post measure 18. You can call of your liberal friends and ask them how they are there liberal firends voted, but if you look at voting by county maps (looking for the link) the vast majority (as far as sq mileage) voted red in the past few elections. I wouldn’t worry about the coyote hunters as much as the gun toting rednecks that have watched there hunting opportunities crash in the last 10 years (usually loggers etc).
        You can push for whatever laws you want, the fact is that OSP can’t enforce the ones it has on the books now.

  220. avatar timz says:

    “I am not surprised that again it has been affirmed, Obama didn’t know anything about wildlife issues when he was running and what makes you think he is that farther along understanding them now”

    But it was “change, change we need and change we can believe in” What we got is what I predicted, the same old crap from another corrupt Washington politician. What we need now and we need quick is a federal judge with some sanity to put a stop to Obama’s version of “relying on sound science” when dealing with ESA issues.

  221. avatar bob jackson says:

    Ryan,
    Why wait a couple more years to butcher a grazer? Because a growing body can not concentrate nutrients. And the faster one produces the weight on an animal the less that animal can give in food value. The agribusiness world, which you evidently have been suckered into hook, line and sinker, provides a very inadequate food for its purchasers. I wouldn’t be proud, if I were you, to claim to be a part of that stockman portion of this business world.

    And as for a new species needed to change how cattle acted and lived, man has been on the domestic producing scene very little of evolutionary species development time.

    The emotions of cattle are still there. Mothers want to be mothers, males want to protect and dependents will always want to be close by the sides of adults. I am an advisory member of Utah States Range Science BEHAVE initiative. A lot of the reason we applied for grants to study social order bison herds in Yellowstone was because there were no functioning cattle herds left to study. The last one was a social order herd on an Alaskan island. It was depopulated only two years before we “found” it. It had been there seventy five years which is very little time of transplant of domestic stock to that island.

    From reading this herds behavior it was fully functioning. Another social order herd was in Spain, but this herd had been managed into dysfunctionality.

    It would have taken us 12-15 years to produce a herd with all roles present. We never even considered whether one breed of cattle would be better suited than another. The instincts to produce these roles are in all cattle. Thus, whether it was longhorns or black angus, even the entrenched cattle academic researchers saw the possibilities. Why can’t you?

    Cows with horns and herds with roles are possible whether it is a black or red and white. And a bunch of bulls have no reason to be unruly or aggressive if they have more of a role than breeding. All this purebred promotional hype of “mild dispositioned bulls” means cattle producers don’t have a clue as to why bulls become mean. All they would have to do is look into the history of slave breeding on the plantations. Here they could only use a human “bull” a year and a half or so before they became too mean to use. Shades of dysfunctional cattle bulls, huh?

    And if you read any of the publications in your stockman publications you would see the number one concern of packers is stress causing tougher meat. And they are talking more than “dark cutters” here.

    Ryan, I ask you to think out of agricultures box once in awhile. If you can’t you are doomed to the life of a lemming.

    Thus I say again, ranchers have no reason to cry wolf if they are not going to allow the animals under their care the tools to defend themselves. And the same goes for wildlife biologists who set seasons designed to break apart all social order infrastructure in the elk they now say need to be protected from wolves. And it also goes for outfitters who shoot the outpost bulls, the ones who could alert the matriarchal components about wolves coming into the area.

    Any of these meetings, where ranchers, state biologists and hunters argue for reduction in wolf numbers, all should be ashamed of themselves. They are the ones making the conditions they cry about. All of them are engaged in symptom management. It appears you are also Ryan. You can do better. Logic this out and it all becomes very clear.

  222. avatar Ryan says:

    Bob,

    I’ve never been more than a hobby farmer at best. The most steers we’ve ever had in recent years is 4, we only have a hobby farm and the steers get me cheaper taxes. My grandpa was a small time cattleman with a few hundred acres and a couple hundred head. That being said, its simple economics, why grass feed out a steer for 2 more years when you can in theory have 2 steers to market instead of one. Your idealistic world is nice, but the bottom line is that for farmers to remain profitiable, they need production. I don’t read the stockman rags, its just basic economic theory.

    “Thus I say again, ranchers have no reason to cry wolf if they are not going to allow the animals under their care the tools to defend themselves. And the same goes for wildlife biologists who set seasons designed to break apart all social order infrastructure in the elk they now say need to be protected from wolves. And it also goes for outfitters who shoot the outpost bulls, the ones who could alert the matriarchal components about wolves coming into the area”

    Can you explain this too me? In the last 10 years of watching and hunting elk I have never seen an outpost bull. I’ve see satalite bulls dogging herds during the rut, I’ve seen raghorns in with the cows later in the fall (second esterus) and from there its usually spikes and cows until spring with the bulls either being solitary or in bachleor groups. (in areas wild areas not elk feeding grounds)

    • avatar bob jackson says:

      Ryan,

      What I said about nutrition and mature animals relates to the ability of ranchers to make money off this knowledge. The packer industry dictates young and “uniform and consistent”. This is an excerise in compromise which all cattle ranchers lemming to the sea. And they go broke doing this. If ranchers followed past civilizations and indigenous peoples knowledge of nutrition then mature animals would have the value comparable to this level. Thus ranchers culpability is not being independent in the thought process which would allow them to manage animals strong enough to resist predators. Beyond this they are hypocrites in advocating the killing of wolves. They stand on the legacy of rugged individuals but they look no further than wanting to raise wimps. I guarantee if people suggested they leave horns on their livestock to better protect against wolf predation they would rally against an all American way of doing business. And if people said they might manage them to develop in family groups to better fight off predators they would look at you in an incredulous way.

      Thus ranchers would show their true colors as a unified lemming pack heading to the sea. Who will be the first to split off from this walk to the gas chambers and start raising “green” animals…animals that are ecologically sustainable, cause little if any riparian damage…and have a lot more nutrition coming from their bodies. you may not be able to do it on your land but I ask you to question those that have the ability but don’t want to change.

  223. avatar Ryan says:

    “Beyond this they are hypocrites in advocating the killing of wolves. They stand on the legacy of rugged individuals but they look no further than wanting to raise wimps. I guarantee if people suggested they leave horns on their livestock to better protect against wolf predation they would rally against an all American way of doing business”

    Thats bullshit, wolves take down mature bull elk and moose with relative ease. Super cow or not, they’d still be subject to the same predation rates. Comparing domesticated cows to bison is a stretch to say the least. I agree with you that raising bison is more ecologically friendly as is raising elk. To push your point like you are is a stretch. The downside to raising bison and elk is the fences required to keep them in in many cases block wild cervid migration paths and are very expensive.

    • avatar Barb says:

      It’s abusive for livestock owners to leave poor, defenseless cattle out in open fields, inviting natural predators to come and get them — and then complaining to high heaven and demanding monetary reparations and an extermination of wildlife when the inevitable happens!

      Isn’t the definition of “neuroses” doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

      • avatar Ryan says:

        Barb,
        Animal husbandry has only been goin on for the last few mellienia (SP, Sorry virginia don’t have spell check on here) predators have been killing stock and getting killed since probably day 3 of the first flock of domesticated animals. It must have been successful because its some how managed to stick around a few thousand years.

  224. avatar bob jackson says:

    ryan,

    It is not the individual effort that is the limiting factor. Just as the stars of the Mixed Martial Arts have to have the time to repair their bodies before taking on another fight so to do predators have to be careful of who they take on. Only thing is with predators it is the meal they miss if they are layed up. Too many meals missed or not enough pack members to help kill those large bulls and it means the demise of all of them. Wolves have to choose their times to take on the big boys.

    I know full well what wolves can do. I also know to what extremes of physical effort I could go to in catching a poacher. But I always had to lay up for awhile before I could push myself again to travel the country after chasing after a poacher trying to get out of Yellowstone ahead of me. I had food back at the cabin and a nice bed to use. Wolves don’t. The only thing they can do is store food on the hoof. Hamstring or pull the anus out of an animal means in two weeks they had the same access to larder as I did in my kitchen cabinets.

    As I said in an earlier post wild cattle herds did very well in the presence of wolves. They expanded all across the Southern USA in the absence of White settlers. Todays way of raising dysfunctional cattle would not allow this increase to happen. Cattle did very well against wolves, thank you maam. they could again.

    As for bison if they are raised as social units it is a lot easier to keep them in. Most of my fences are 5 strand barb wire that the county put in when they redid the roads. Families have homes whether it is humans or other animals and once home is established they want to stay there.

    Again it is just working and understanding animals that allows for managing animals “outside the box”.

  225. avatar kim kaiser says:

    pretty clear that husseins politics (money in other words) overrode science on the wolf issue, anything other interpretation is just rationalizing to fit your need. if he had any nuts on him, he could override the decision, but he cant control his own party. remember he is your boy, and you put him there to take care of this,, and he poked you in the eye, so stop whining about the delisting,,

    • My feeling is that it was 99% Salazar, not Obama.

      The President currently has so many issues on his plate, I doubt he had a briefing or discussion session whether to delist the wolf.

      I don’t think folks are whining about delisting. We are going to sue.

      • avatar JimT says:

        From what I “heard”, Ralph, the usual groups got to Salazar in DC..hunting, cattlemen..I wasn’t surprised, but I was deeply disappointed when I heard that he had all the major players from the national groups in a meeting in DC and didn’t have the cajones to have an honest conversation about the issue of delisting. Nope, took a page out of the Republican playbook, and dumped it on Friday news cycle. Obama was surprised, and I think, by now, he was not happy with the surprise. In one way, it is just a continuation of the trend recently of the Interior Department operations to be offhand, legally questionable,and chicken^^^^.

  226. avatar Maska says:

    Precisely. And send some emergency donations to the organizations doing the suing. Whining is a waste of energy. 🙂

    Obama, being a big city guy from east of the Mississippi, probably knows next to nothing about wolves. My gripe with him is his appointment of Salazar in the first place. You can bet he has already heard from many of us on this issue. He’ll be hearing a lot more.

    No matter whom you elect, once they’re in office, you have to keep an eye on them and keep the pressure on them to do the right thing.

    • avatar JimT says:

      That would probably be Earthjustice as the lead attorneys, and Center for Biological Diversity and others in important support roles. DOW’s Action Fund will probably be the major player in terms of political responses. All good organizations.

      • avatar Brian Ertz says:

        Earthjustice will be filing the litigation – representing the same coalition as before from what I understand.

      • avatar JimT says:

        I suspect, Brian, the pleadings don’t have to changed much for the new lawsuit, so should go fairly quickly. I am hoping for…LAYTON, ARE YOU OUT THERE..LOL..for a decent judge to get the case this time around. Since this isn’t technically an appeal issue, I don’t think the judge who ruled on the “previous but same rule” would retain the case..do you know?

      • avatar Brian Ertz says:

        actually, i believe it might be molloy again – i think he retains it, or at least has a greater likelihood of hearing it because it’s related.

        a lot of times lawyers will keep complaints open, retaining a particular judge that is informed on the background, etc. i’m not entirely sure whether the case was dismissed with the original delisting – if it’s still open, it’ll be molloy’s for sure. if it was closed, the case could be assigned any of the judges in the Montana District (a safe assumption that’s where it will be filed again) – but it may be decided that molloy should hear the case again given it is ‘related’.

  227. avatar kim kaiser says:

    hussein is the president, he has the authority to override all those people,,its a cop out to say its salazar and not hussein, when hussein said HE was gonna go over all of the bush late night esa items, in fact, one of the headings in this blog 2 or so weeks ago, it quotes hussein saying HE will go over everything . so if that is the case, and he has gone over all the ESA type things, then he is aware and he approves,, in the end, like you all liked to say, with the bush admin, its on the president, not his lackeys, He is the boss, ,

  228. avatar JimT says:

    I am deeply disappointed in Kim Kaiser’s use of the H word as a pejorative aimed at Obama. I had thought that kind of stuff had left the building with Cheney and Palin. I guess not.

    And the use of the term “boy”…hmmm….careless, Kim.

    • avatar Ryan says:

      “I am deeply disappointed in Kim Kaiser’s use of the H word as a pejorative aimed at Obama. I had thought that kind of stuff had left the building with Cheney and Palin. I guess not.

      And the use of the term “boy”…hmmm….careless, Kim.”

      Why Jim? It is his middle name. Jim if Kim used the word boy in refernce to a non african american it would be okay?

      • avatar JimT says:

        Cut the “aw shucks” stuff, Ryan. ~S~ I grew up a 1/4 mile from Calhoun’s Farm in upstate NY, and I got very used to the smell of manure, and the sounds of bull…~S~

        It is definitely NOT a custom to refer to most people by only their middle name, Ryan, unless someone wants to send a message. And it was a shameful tactic by the conservative right to try and link a man of mixed race to a dictator who was accused and convicted of war crimes by his own country. It is that effort in the campaign I found distasteful and still do.

        There are certain words in this country’s history that are “loaded”, and are not used casually lest they offend, and the use of that word in reference to a African American is one that crosses that line. I am assuming Kim used it without really thinking of the import. It happens on email.

        Last comment on this, Ralph. Too far off topic.

    • avatar kim kaiser says:

      when my golfing buddy makes a good putt,, we say “atta boy”!! good putt!!

      i see my friends say to there friends about there kid hitting a home run,, “thats my boy”!!!

      do you question them about there “carelessness” ??

      CLint Eastwood hit it on the head about a week ago, this country has gotten so worried about political correctness that we have lost the ability to have free speech,, GROW UP, GET OVER IT!!!,, not every connotation has racial undertones,,, you will know when i start to use racial connotations,, you wont have to guess

      and also,, i bet you could probably search the term BUSHIES or BUSHITES on this site and get 5000 hits, so is that not disrespectful to our previous president, but you suddenly want to let by gones be by gones and give hussein a chance and not talk ugly or be respectful, or hope he succeeds,, or others to bow down and kiss husseins feet and forgive an forget,,a so called kinder and gentler tone,, and not remind you of the stupidity you have now created and having to defend. and the vitriole that was spewed from this site and others towards the prior admin… thats a big crock of crap, No JimT, it hasnt left the door, in fact, Bush is still being referred to as bushies or bushites,or what ever detrimental term yall chose to characterize him, MSNBC doesnt report on what hussein is doing but still living in the past on what bush did,, , so get used to it,, Hussein is hussein,, he subject to the same scrutiny that dubya (oh shoot, i called him by his middle name) ( i bet you want scold me on that one) got,, and just like you did for 8 years,, at least one or two of us here will remind you when hussein has backtracked or screwed you,, unless the owner wants a one sided conversation site

  229. avatar JimT says:

    No one, especially me, is holding Obama blameless in the wolf delisting debacle. He does, ultimately, bear responsibility for approving the choice, or, not objecting. But, did he order the decision? I have no ultimate proof, but I would hazard my mortgage the answer is NO. He is not a Westerner by birth, domicile choice, or even as a visitor to the western landscape. That is part of the problem folks for Grijalva ran into…Obama’s team just didn’t get it about the western issues, so they didn’t know just how critical the choice of Secretary was in terms of issues facing the Western landscape and resources. So, we got Big Hat..a fence straddling, ESA hating, public welfare ranching politician. If you are looking for the decisionmaker, who IS fully accountable for this debacle, it is Salazar and his industry constituency from his Senate days.

    • avatar Brian Ertz says:

      David Hayes was on the transition team — Hayes “gets” western issues, it’s just he gets it the wrong way – apparently. I think it might have something to do with the wrong lessons from Babbit being extended into the Obama transition — when Babbit got spanked for taking on Livestock – the lesson was to keep the tail between your legs and avoid that level of controversy.

      I don’t think many of the D players that were around then understand the degree to which the congressionals capable of doing the political damage that they did to Babbit aren’t around now like they were then (Craig, Dominici, Burns, etc.) – that, or they weren’t willing to risk it.

      There is a generally timid posture that western Democrats, and the national groups, maintain that is very counterproductive – IMO. An aversion to controversy that keeps western resource management on the defensive. As an example, when the 10(j) briefings were filed, many wondered why there was no Press Release issued – to help elevate Idaho’s public plan to slaughter wolves in the Clearwater & Lolo into public awareness… One of the responses by the nationals was that a Press Release might evoke a ‘backlash’ …

      I am not as optimistic about the political ability of conservation groups in this environment as you are JimT. There have been many opportunities before this announcement to do something – i’ve witnessed that – and with no response for fear of political retribution.

      They said nothing when they had the chance with the nomination of Salazar – it was local and regionals that spoke up. And as far as I can tell, with this recent decision – the rest has been a big fund-raising hoopla among the Big Greens (St. Clair refers to as “GangGreen”).

    • avatar Brian Ertz says:

      Ultimately, it was Obama that chose to put these issues on the backburner, it’s Obama that chose the surrugates and it’s Obama that ought take any popularity hit for this decision. You may notice the action alerts being tossed around that are careful not to mention Obama’s name. That’s purposeful, and I think it’s characteristic of mentioned lack of backbone. The political impact of any outrage will be felt more succesfully if it’s percieved to tarnish Obama’s popularity among a conservation constituency – not when it’s strictly isolated to Salazar. Otherwise he becomes even more useful/valuablt to Obama as a deflector. Salazar will be put in a box when his decisions are percieved to be a political liability to Obama, not the other way around.

      And ultimately, as distasteful as Kim’s delivery – it’s true that Obama ought be held politically liable. We called the rule “bush’s delisting” when it happened under his administration – we ought be consistent.

      • avatar JimT says:

        I have never been much of a believer in the buck travels to the top from a pragmatic standpoint. I tend to look and see who is the actual decision-maker and hold that person accountable and responsible. If Obama doesn’t know…or care? about Western national resources issues, how can you really hold him accountable for a decision unless it is the strictest line of reasoning? Nope, Salazar and Hayes own this decision..forever. JMO

        I think the action alerts are more reflective of the distaste for Salazar by local folks than it is to protect Obama.

        When Obama’s administration passes a rule on polar bears, or badgers or sage grouse, I will absolutely hold his Administration responsible, but not for a rule that he got stuck with from the Bush administration.

  230. avatar JimT says:

    Scuttlebutt has it that Hayes, after he was passed over for the Secretary’s position, was determined to play kingmaker with the rest of the appointments, and that he didn’t like the fact the nationals went to bat behind the scenes against Hayes for some of his lawsuits and corporate clients.

    Brian, I still wonder where the Green Groups were on Grijalva, and so do folks on the Hill I know who were pushing for RG. When I hear a theory or the reasons, I will pass them along if they are credible.

    I would agree with you on the timidity of the Western Dems on environmental fights; it is a sad fact that the extractive industries play hardball..always have, always will, and yet the Dems still hope to court their vote…won’t ever happen. Dems should just accept it and seek a voice in demographics that represent the future of the West, not the past. And do it with a stronger voice and backbone. Why apologize for supporting wilderness and species and habitat protections? It is what most folks out here care about as the demographics change. I am convinced that some hardline ads by the NRA on the behalf of the Republican opponent against Mark Udall resulted in a jump in the polls in favor of Mark by 8 points, and he went to a relatively easy victory. I think the newer citizens of the West are sick to death of business as usual across the board, not just politics.

  231. avatar timz says:

    Thru the primary and election processes it never ceased to amaze me how to his worshippers Obama could do no wrong and that amazement continues on. “This is not his fault he knows nothing about the West, wolves, blah blah blah. It’s all Salazar’s fault.” Funny, I have seen, many times, on this blog and others Bill Clinton get kudos for allowing the reintroduction and to some degree those kudos are justified. Rarely to you see Babbits name mentioned however. In that light I wish folks would cut the adoration crap and admit this decision ultimately falls on Obama and the blood of every soon to be slaughtered wolf is on his hands as much as anybody elses.

    • avatar Brian Ertz says:

      Clinton pulled the rug out from under Babbit when he (Babbit) tried to raise the grazing fee — Clinton was taking heat for the reform, so he boxed Babbit – presumably making him wear a cowboy hat at all the gatherings in the West after that fact.

      That’s the point — if a group or a group of groups want to pretend like they’re going to use their members to apply political pressure – it needs to be leveraged at the president, for the president is ultimately (and rightly) responsible for all decisions.

  232. avatar JimT says:

    Easy TimZ. Worshippers imply that those of who supported him did so with fervor instead of intelligence and that we are blind to his shortcomings. Stating a fact that he knows nothing about the West and Salazar does and Salazar is the decisionmaker in this case means there are graded levels of direct and indirect responsibility for the wolf slaughter that MAY happen; I am still hopeful the judge will grant a TRO due to the uniqueness of the case…it is not too common the same exact rule that was struck down is finalized again with no changes.

    Babbit got credit where credit is due. Go back and read the accounts of the times. It wasn’t all BILL all the time on wolves. Maybe I am a bit out of step, but I never considered Clinton to be a great environmental president…

    • avatar Brian Ertz says:

      JimT,

      there is a 30 day window in which we can’t file a TRO – but, from what i understand, the slaughter could commence. the ESA requires a litigant to file a 60 notice of intent to sue upon publication of a rule, meaning you have to wait 60 days — the rule goes into effect 30 days after publication — that leaves 30 days. again – as with my previous comment – this assumes that the case had been dismissed before – that it’s not the same case as the first delisting. if it is the same case, then the 60-day NOI is fulfilled.

      the rule was changed to exclude Wyoming – that’s different than the original rule that was struck down by the judge, but it’s the same as the 2nd rule drafted under Bush – Salazar/Obama went with Bush’s second attempt. I actually believe that the exclusion of Wyoming is a flagrant violation of recovery – given ‘all’ states need an acceptable recovery plan — so the change may make it easier to win on summary judgement, i.e. as a matter of law/uncontested fact.

      in any event, you may remember that last time the lawyers at EarthJustice opted not to file a TRO until it was very apparent that a slaughter was underway — it makes it easier to demonstrate irreparable harm – a hurdle (another is ‘likely to prevail on merits’) to grant a TRO.

    • avatar Brian Ertz says:

      p.s. – there is an argument to be made that the lawyers could submit a complaint via the Administrative Procedures Act and ask for injuction there, thus sidestepping the 60 day NOI requirement of the ESA. That’s what Laird Lucas (advocateswest.org) did when we litigated the FWS’s refusal to list sage-grouse. We didn’t wait the 60-days. and like i mentioned, that complaint is still open – thus we still have the judge that has the background on the issue. But the APA angle is rarely done, from what i understand.

      it could prevent that 30-day window of slaughter.

    • avatar Cord says:

      JimT says:
      “Worshippers imply that those of who supported him did so with fervor instead of intelligence and that we are blind to his shortcomings.”

      Well, there you have it.

      • avatar JimT says:

        Brian, I am familiar with the 60 day notice, etc..but hoped that the rather unique status of this case and its administrative history mean somehow it could be waived, but you know more than I do about this case, so it looks like wolves will be killed before anyone can do something..unless there is an APA backdoor somehow. Here’s hoping

        My understanding and correct me if I am wrong, but the Salazar Rule is the same as the Kempthorne Rule..aka the second Bush rule?

      • avatar Brian Ertz says:

        yeah,

        Salazar reaffirmed the second Bush rule — thus marginalizing wolf advocates

  233. avatar timz says:

    “presumably making him wear a cowboy hat at all the gatherings in the West after that fact.”

    meant as a joke or not that’s pretty funny.

  234. avatar Save bears says:

    To be honest with you, I would really like to see another Judge rule on this matter.

  235. avatar Layton says:

    Hey JimT, yep, I’m still out here. And I sure have to give you credit for keeping things interesting — this is a REALLY good one!!

    “I am deeply disappointed in Kim Kaiser’s use of the H word as a pejorative aimed at Obama. I had thought that kind of stuff had left the building with Cheney and Palin. I guess not. ”

    After all the rude, nasty, unfounded, salacious CRAP I heard about President Bush and seeing the names that he was called, again, on this blog, I think it either takes a lot of gall or just plain brass cajones to complain about using someone’s middle name.

    Really, come on now — give me a break!!

    • avatar kim kaiser says:

      Layton, it only takes a double standard or a hipporocracy,,,someone even said that bush and cheneys people were just a waste of good air,!!does that mean they wish they were dead! sounds way more menacing than calling hussein by his inaugurated middle name.

      Bushes people here were referred to cronies etc, i choose to call husseins people lackeys,,just a matter of terminology, difference is,, i think bush had his cronies as well, and admit that but some wont say hussein has flunkies, boys, lackeys, they will continue just to fall in line behind the self annointed one and continue to get screwed by him.

  236. avatar Elkchaser says:

    I’m not really sure where this “new west” crap is actually believed other than places like Ketchum and Jackson.
    If the president y’all elected and the directors he appointed are still not giving you the results you wanted, maybe just maybe you are the ones that are out of touch with reality??

    • avatar John d. says:

      Perhaps you need a history lesson as to why the wolves were reintroduced?

    • avatar JimT says:

      Takes time to move the fat cat industry vested interests out of the state governor’s offices..~S~ And the new west crap is supported by demographics. The West is changing, just not fast enough. Now, if we ended the subsidies and the sweetheart fee and tax deals to the grazing, forest, mining industries, perhaps that change could happen faster. It is amazing to me how many of the conservative right scream and yell about the FEDS and get them out of our lives…EXCEPT when those federal welfare dollars are concerned. Those are taken eagerly and without a whiff of hypocrisy.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        JimT,

        Thats a great idea lets get rid of more jobs in this already depressed economy!

      • avatar Elkchaser says:

        So if you say the west is changing often enough does that make it seem more real to you. If you don’t like the west, I’m sure CA and NY could use some more folks.
        Also, a bunch of these so called GREEN INITIATIVES need federal subsidies to make them competitve. Sounds very hypocritical to me.

    • avatar Barb says:

      Most people in government, left or right, are not very concerned with the environment, and less so, wild animals. A very sad, but true fact.

      • avatar JimT says:

        Short term job creation programs in a bad economy to develop fossil fuel free energy sources that are renewable..GREEN INITIATIVES

        ..vs hundred years of more of below market fees for grazing permits and animal fees; poorly enforced permit conditions allow careless livestock management practices to trash landscapes, streams and watersheds; a permit system that somehow, despite the legal concept of a permit as temporary guarantees have, through the influence of cattleman’s associations and other lobbyists in the legislator’s office into something that now people claim are “rights” under the law. And all done on public lands historically without full accountability, financial, environmentally or otherwise.

        Yeah, Elkchaser, I could see how you see these as the same thing..VBG…No hypocrisy..just the truth about public land grazing. Folks with private ranches..hell, they can do whatever they want with their livestock, part of their rights so long as they don’t adversely affecting neighboring private or public lands. Public land dependent ranchers…should be held accountable for their actions, and they should pay market value prices just like the private lands folks do. They never have and as long as the system we have in place to pay them money out of public coffers to enable them to stay in business, it never will change.

        Tell me, why is it that public land ranchers think they are entitled to a specific lifestyle when they can’t maintain on their own, and NEED federal handouts to stay in the ranching business. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

  237. avatar kim kaiser says:

    An email letter i got today from NRDC still blaming the Bush admin,, move on NRDC !!! ITS HUSSEINS PLAN NOW!!! not bush, its not salazar,, its HUSSEIN,, Hussein is the president and as such, can override these things,,

    they keep putting bush in the titles, what a sham, all hussein had to do was just say no and he didnt have the chops to stand up,, looks like hussein is the lackey and reid and pelosi ar e the leaders here,,

    1,000 Wolves In Danger

    Interior Secretary Salazar has rubberstamped a Bush-era plan to kick the wolves of the Northern Rockies off the endangered species list. Help NRDC go to court to win back their protection — before the states get the green light to start the slaughter.

    Dear Kim,

    It’s the worst possible news for the wolves of the Northern Rockies: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has given the green light to a Bush-era plan that will kick them off the Endangered Species list.

    Please give an emergency contribution to help NRDC rush to court to defend these wolves.

    Nearly 1,000 wolves from Greater Yellowstone to Glacier National Park could be caught in the cross-fire of state-sponsored wolf hunts — and that killing could begin in just a few weeks.

    The decision couldn’t come at a worse time. Breeding season is here, and wolves will start giving birth in April. That means pregnant females and newborn pups will be among those gunned down.

    I’m sure you share my disappointment that the Obama Administration has abandoned a science-based approach in this rush to hand wolf management back to the states.

    • avatar JimT says:

      And whose party depressed the economy? Not mine…LOL…

      The future lies with renewables and recreation..not in the old extractive industries. There is nothing wrong with having some of traditional industries provide jobs; it is the blatant disproportionate influence these folks have on the state and federal legislators object to. Look what happened to the forestry industry towns in the Northwest. When the forest was cut, they were gone someplace else until the next crop was in…and lots of folks lost jobs. Yeah, I know..it was those damned environmentalists that did it to them..

      Actually, it was the forest industry’s refusal to abide by duly passed laws and regulations that did them in; the environmentalist efforts merely pointed that out…~S~

      • avatar Cord says:

        JimT says:
        “And whose party depressed the economy? Not mine…LOL…”

        Who’s party has held the majority in both houses for the last 2 years? Not mine. There’s plenty of blame to spread around.

    • I personally don’t like to hear Obama called “Hussein.” However, we did call Bush many worse things on this blog, and you should (or maybe shouldn’t) have heard me around home.

      Kim’s a southern Republican.

      I hope we can discuss things political in civil fashion, however.

      • avatar JimT says:

        Cord, the worst of the effects of the deregulation and free for all for the financial industry didn’t really become apparent until two years ago, and the Republicans spent a fair amount of time, as the record shows, putting up roadblocks to both their own White House and Democrats when it was clear the damage was deep and long lasting. Their roadblock attitude is still going on while the economy tanks, and even some Blue Dog Dems are more concerned about keeping their jobs in two or 4 years they are forgetting to do their damned jobs now. There is no doubt whatsoever the Bush Administration economic policies set the state for the current disaster, along with Greenspan’s mismanagement of the housing bubble. There is no way a reasoned argument can blame Obama for this, or a Democratic legislature. They are stuck with it…and George must chortling in Texas and thanking the stars he is out of the mess he and his cronies created.

      • avatar JimT says:

        I disagree Ralph. Deliberate comparison to a mass murderer and dictator is much worse than any labels that were put on Bush that I read…There was much name calling in our house as well, as you probably guessed, but “mass murderer” wasn’t one of them.

        Now, if you ask me if there should be an investigation into the torture scandal and sanctioning…I would say yes..that boil needs to be lanced if we are to have credibility again on that issue. It would be ugly, no doubt, but necessary in my opinion. Lots of other legal folks disagree, including Obama.

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      this is why Kaiser calls Obama by his middle
      On Sept.11, 2008 Kaiser said”……as for hussein,, have you read his memoirs,, and specifically the part where he discusses muslims(sic) and when the chips are down which way he may lean,, it is a simple reminder that his background and upbringing and allegiance is the same as those who steered those planes into our country,, just a friendly reminder,………”

      draw your own conclusions.

      • avatar JimT says:

        As a postscript, in all fairness. Regan started the deregulation of the financial industry, and Clinton finished it off, setting the stage for folks in subsequent administrations who believed in unbridled, unregulated capitalism..like the good old days of Morgan and Rothschild…should be given free rein to do as they wish. Clinton still defends that decision..hard to believe.

  238. avatar Layton says:

    “Perhaps you need a history lesson as to why the wolves were reintroduced?”

    Perhaps a history lesson WOULD be in order.

    When the puppies were intro’d in 95 the reasons given (not necessarily in order) were; ESA compliance, biological diversity, they were here first, etc.

    Now the main reason that seems to be advanced here is “to make the elk more wild” or “to make the elk act more like elk”

    Which one IS correct??

    • Layton,

      Why would just one be the real reason?

      There is no reason to select one. At least, I can’t see one.

    • avatar John d. says:

      No Layton,

      I was thinking more around 1884-1935, when the grey wolf was killed off because of the same reasons they are hated now by the same kind of people; later causing an explosion of ungulates, degradation of the landscape and flora, complete disturbance of the natural balance between the fauna (hence the amount of coyotes around).

      • avatar Elkchaser says:

        I’m pretty sure there wasn’t an ESA in 1935, so what exactly does your reference have anything to do with todays ESA world. There is no scenario that any sane person can argue that all of the wolves will be eliminated if they are delisted.

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      Layton,
      close your eyes, pick one, and run with it

  239. avatar JB says:

    It would be interesting to look at the comments in all of the delisting and relisting posts over the past few years. While the lyrics seem to change a bit here and there, the song remains the same.

  240. avatar Barb says:

    Kim, could you please just state your opinion without resorting to name calling? It will make more people want to listen to what you actually have to say than being offended by provocative words. Maybe count to 100 before the word “Hussein” comes out?

    • avatar Save bears says:

      Oh come on Barb, I have heard far worse said about Bush that just using his middle name over the years…

    • avatar Elkchaser says:

      Barb – you either got back on the meds or got off the crazy train you were on the last couple of weeks. I seem to remember you and kT accusing several people of being trolls and we should go away. I’m not even sure if you are the same person from day to day in reference to your posts.

  241. avatar Barb says:

    I actually gave my donation to Defenders of Wildlife instead for suing for de-listing. 🙂

  242. avatar John d. says:

    Elkchaser:

    “I’m pretty sure there wasn’t an ESA in 1935, so what exactly does your reference have anything to do with todays ESA world. There is no scenario that any sane person can argue that all of the wolves will be eliminated if they are delisted.”

    Reading the comment and using your head would be a good start.

    2/3 population eliminated + poaching + Wildlife services, maybe throw a few outbreaks in there, poor weather conditions, not enough pup survivals. Take your pick.

    • avatar Elkchaser says:

      I forgot that you were living in make believe world. Note the comment on SANE person.

      • avatar John d. says:

        No just a place called Australia, a country that has been screwed over by the interests of sport hunters and farming lobbies.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        John,
        Can you please expand on that assertion that austrailia has been screwed over in the interests of sports hunters?

  243. avatar John d. says:

    Certainly Ryan,

    1. Introduction of non-native species for recreational hunting, then letting the introduced animals take over the native species.
    2. Conservation of destructive non-native ungulate species such as deer and water buffalo.
    3. Exterminating the largest marsupial carnivore, the Thylacine.
    4. Bringing the dingo to the brink of extinction, and still backing eradication programs because of government bounties on scalps. Interesting note that the manufacturer of wolf traps back in the early 1900’s also makes the ‘wild dog’ traps here today. Its advertisements for traps state something similar to the arguments bought over U.S. grey wolves when it comes to the extent of livestock depredation.
    5. Avocating for the use of the volatile super-toxin Sodium Fluroacetate (a.k.a. Compound 1080).

    Not to mention out near the centre of Australia, places such as Miles and Longreach, family pets have been deliberately shot and claimed as feral dogs.

    But I digress… the situation in Australia is a stern warning for the U.S. not to allow this sort of thing to happen.

    • avatar Ryan says:

      John d.

      The things you mention are all very serious problems, but to try and campare them to the same hunters and farmers that are around now is a stretch at best considering most of the things you mentioned happened over a 100 years ago. Its equivelent to blaming todays army for killing the buffalo, something that would never happen in todays society.
      On note 2. the US is making the same mistake with wild horses right now. Please note dingos are a non native species to Austrailia, granted they have been there for a long time.

      The story of austrailia and non native animals is a sad one.

      • avatar John d. says:

        Ryan

        Excluding the introduction of species and the eradication of the Thylacine (which went extinct in the 1940’s), the aforementioned points do concern the ongoing actions of today’s hunters and farmers. If I wanted to go back into the earliest settlement times, I could have added sport hunting of Aboriginals.

        Concerning your non native dingo statement:

        “Various studies on geological records and samples of dingo mitochondrial DNA have shown that our dingo
        has been present on the Australian continent for at least 3,500 years, probably up to about 12,000 years. This is a
        very long time in the context of evolution and has been sufficient for the dingo to evolve and adapt to the Australian
        environment. By any official definition, the dingo is “native”.”
        ~Australian Dingo Foundation

      • avatar Ryan says:

        By there definition its native, not by the true definition of native. I love selective reading.
        BTW, your austrailia example is a stretch to saying that wolves will become extinct on the if the ESA listing is lifted. You can put your foil hat back on now.

  244. avatar kim kaiser says:

    to Jeff E,
    you got it, in relation to my 08 comment, I dont trust hussein with our country anymore than you did with bush over the environment,, so whats your point, but i do thank you for reminding folks by the statement again,,

    Barb, hussein is his middle name, as far as name calling, i think you should direct to all the way worse names that were directed toward the prior administration. I dont remebmer you telling people to lay off the name calling, at least Ralph can honestly admit he had some choice names for bush and his people

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      for the same reason I associate your last name with one of the most repressive bloodthirsty rulers in history and because of that and your last name I don’t trust you.
      which makes the same sense as your position with Obama and that would be none whatsoever.

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      and Kaiser, if your going to base your judgements of people on what they have written in a book you should try to understand what is being said and in what context. here is the text that you refer to(I assume) which is talking about past injustices committed against certain groups of people by the government:

      The Audacity of Hope. Obama talks about speaking in front of audiences of immigrants, and how he often tells them that they embody the American dream. But he wrote that when he speaks to audiences of Pakistani and Arab-Americans, their message to him has a more urgent quality.

      “(T)he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

    • avatar JimT says:

      No one ever compared Bush to a convicted war crimes dictator, Kim. Those of us on the left have some sense of decorum. When your spokesperson is a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh…I guess he does set a fine example for reasoned discourse…~S~

      As for the negative comments about Bush2, based on his record, he got off lightly.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        Jim,

        Isn’t that the same as calling your spokesperson michael moore or Barb?

      • avatar JimT says:

        No, you have got to be kidding me..LOL. Dems are traditionally so scattered in their media message..I am not sure they know who their “spokespeople” are…LOL…Rush’s status and approval by the conservative wings of the Repub party are well documented. They love him despite the drug dealing addiction stuff..etc…Talk about hypocrites. But hey, if they want to have Rush carry the banner of the party, and actually be able to affect the party’s agenda, I would say go for it..makes my life as a liberal a hell of a lot easier next election, just like it was this past November. The more extreme the leading voices of the Republicans get, the better position the Dems are in…

        Michael Moore is a blowhard at times, but his motives are generally a hell of lot more positive than Rush’s, who is on the record as saying he hope Obama fails…therefore, he hopes the country goes down the tubes more than he wants to get better. What else can you say to a man like that except…HUH?

  245. avatar kim kaiser says:

    Yes, the Ceasar”s had a fine rule, and the weak did not survive, in addition, they provided civilization with art, architecture and accomplishments in building, shipbuilding, transportation, the use of measurements, ever heard of the term “mile” well guess what civilization started the measuremens on teh appian way,, that still are in use today, much of the language you currently speak is derivitive of my ancesters language, so many things that you currently enjoy are current forms provide that provide convienences that you use today..(lets see, that thing called a Republic, it allowed you to vote in that person,, ring any bells there chief,, if not, its the government we use today), do you need any more examples of what my name origins civilization provided for you,,

    nothing wrong with the barbaric times, consider it, and early method of population control,,the barbarian times were what they were, there contributions over time have way out valued there military accomplishments,,

    i dont really care if you like or dislike the origin of my name, fact is, mine is in full view, you hide yours behind a moniker, are you ashamed or yours,,,unlike hussein, who is not proud of his drunken, irresponsible father, I am proud of mine and the name he gave me so,, i will pull the old childs play tune, sticks and stones may break my bones on and on,,

    as far as hussein is concerned,, I will not trust him thats just simple as that, and as he has already crawfished on promises he made to you and your environental concerns,, how the hell can u even begin to continue to trust him.. you are already having to rationalize a bad voting decision,, lets see, this admin is gonna go over all of bushes midnight changes, line by line, well, science will trump politics,, well you got your first dose of his science trumps over politics, he has ok’ed the wolf delisting, when your science says its not the right time… where are his balls!!! HE LIED TO YOU!!!!! all that big talk, big speeches,, you fell for the line!!

    lets see, earmarks,, no more earmarks,, and there 8500 of them just signed off on,,he says its old business,, WHAT A TOTAL CROCK OF S__T!!!!!! ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS SAY NO!! and what did he do, he crumpled like a cheap paper sack and did what reid and pelois told him to do.., lets see, wonder how much desert will be destroyed with old dirty harrys new rail line from LA to LV in the last stimulus,,!!!what a green guy!!

    HUSSEIN SAYS
    NO LOBBYIST IN MY ADMINISTRATION!! not only has he packed in lobbyist, he has a tax cheat running the treasury!! who admitted he wouldnt have paid the bill if he hadnt been nominated and let the statute run out,, holy crap, talk about fox in the hen house,, Richardson nomination under corruptions investigations, and good ole Dashule made the treasury secretary look like childs play,, ( his wife was a major airline lobbyist during daschles term as head of senate)no conflict there Im sure

    Your boy has lots of good associations,, and i suspect he is going to continue screwing you, and just like the last time, you wont even get the courtesy of a reacharound.., DOW, earthjustice BFC and whoever else, is gonna have to spend hard earned donations to sue for something that was in the so called bag,, so you defend him,,, go ahead,, its that kind of weakness that he relies on,,

    • avatar JB says:

      We did it the Republicans way and look where it got us. Obama has inherited a nightmare brought about by an utter lack of regulation, unfettered military spending and a tax policy that saw an enormous redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest people. The perfect storm of mis-management. He’s had 52 days to fix a problem nearly three decades in the making; but Americans have no patience.

      Kim, I suggest turning off Faux News and going for a nice walk in the out of doors. You’ll feel better, I promise. 🙂

      • avatar Cord says:

        JB,

        For the record:
        Since 1977:
        Number of times each party has held the majority:
        Senate Dems=8 Repubs=9
        House Dems=11 Repubs=5

        Who do you blame again?
        source: senate.gov
        Not Fox News.

      • avatar JB says:

        I think you’ve missed a rather important branch of the federal government, Cord. Since Reagan’s election, Republicans have held the White House for 20 of the past 28 years. Deregulation, while continued by both Bushes AND Clinton, was a policy begun by every Republican’s hero, Ronald Reagan.

      • avatar Cord says:

        No, JB, I didn’t forget the executive branch. By design, our gov has a balance of power between the branches. I’m just trying to point out there is plenty of blame to go around.

  246. avatar jdubya says:

    Glad to see the Salt Lake Tribune get involved…

    http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11898739

  247. avatar John d. says:

    “By there definition its native, not by the true definition of native. I love selective reading. BTW, your Australia example is a stretch to saying that wolves will become extinct on the if the ESA listing is lifted. You can put your foil hat back on now.”

    You pawed at your mother with those fingers?

    The dingo evolved here and Australia’s ecosystem would go to pot if not for this critter (Queensland has a fine example of what goes wrong when they are removed from an area), put bluntly yes it is native. And I’m not stretching anything not by a long shot, I’m fully aware of what the bubbas are capable of considering the damage they have done here. Combine them with Wildlife Services, add a few bad breeding seasons or poor conditions and you’re right back where you started from. It is entirely possible.

    • avatar Ryan says:

      John,

      I’m sorry I doubted you, Its also entirely possible that I’ll run into jennifer aniston tommorrow, she’ll fall madly in love with me, and we’ll live happily ever ofter off our powerball winnings.. Completely possible, but not very likely.

      With regards to Dingoes, what you saying is that after a certain amount of time decimating native species (several went extinct) and being an Invasive. There designation suddenly changes to native after that time? Granted they have been on the continent a couple of thousand years, but were not a species that evolved for millions of years on that continent. There prescence changed the entire ecology of austrailia.

      I’m sorry that my foil hat comment hurt your feelings, but this chicken little theory that is so pervasive in the animal rights/enviromental movement is hugely annoying.

      • avatar John d. says:

        Ryan

        Dingoes kill invasive species thus helping smaller marsupials to survive, however their impact on large marsupial species is in fact beneficial for the ecosystem. The lack of their presence causes large marsupial numbers to escalate and wipe out vegetation. Much like what happens to elk numbers when grey wolves are reduced.

        Perhaps you should look back over a few months on this blog and read some of the events that have quelled the number of grey wolves.

      • avatar Ryan says:

        John,

        Dingoes lead to the extinction of native predators on the austrailian continent. There is evidence of several species that went extinct within a few hundred years of the dingoes arrival on the austrailian continent.

        Even with the reduction efforts in certain areas, the wolf population overall has still grown and ranges expanded. Even with the proposed reductions, its not in anyones best interest for wolves to get back on the endangered species list.

  248. avatar Save bears says:

    None of this has a darn thing to do with the Obama administration approving the delisting of wolves, hell it sounds like a left/right history of the world going here!

    Geeze!!!

    • avatar Ryan says:

      Don’t your love it SB? I’ll be the first to admit that I’m horrible at staying on topic. So far I’ve hit animals feelings, do animals have cognitive thinking, super cows, dingoes, dimensia, austrailia, and presidential topics all in one thread! This is a new record for me, but I’ll make an effort to stay less sidetracked. 🙂

  249. avatar kim kaiser says:

    sure it does, Save Bears,, he said science would prevail, not politics,, instead politics prevailed,, now, all that hard earned cash the enviro groups have been raising are going to have to GO BACK TO COURT to sue AGAIN!! to try an get it overturned, AGAIN!!! with what i am sure are drying up donation funds,

    Ralph, no one ever doubted that earmarks may never disappear, but Hussein made it a point to suck in the foolish that NONE would EVER pass through his desk, it was one of his promises,,that has now been broken. As well as his promises of no lobbyist in MY administration, and two weeks in, he had to make all kinds of back steps and caveats to justify his hiring of many. He did not say on his campaign trail, i will only hire the ones I find useful, he said none. If he wasnt gonna do it, he should have never said he would. And what is worse, a whole lot of suckers took the bait.

    Do you people honestly believe this guy has any intergity at all after all the back pedaling and back tracking he has already done, or are you afraid to wake up each day and see what has he done next to go backwards on his change the way washington works promises,, really, go look in the mirror and say you do,,,,if you do, you are simply ignoring realities,,he has proved it already, he didnt need four years, he did it in 50 days.

    JB, your and ignorance of economy simply cant be addressed !
    i give

    • avatar JimT says:

      KK,

      It was clear that if he vetoed the emergency spending bill, the Republicans would simply hold it up longer, and as OBAMA said, in these extraordinary times, we can’t afford to have the only entity with funds to stimulate the economy..FEDS..to sit idle for months while Congress dicks around. The Banks have money…they have at least 350 billion of Paulson’s unconditioned gift to them sitting around when the tacit understanding of the TARP monies was to get them back in circulation, helping small business, helping folks stay out of bankruptcy. Instead the arrogant nimrods spent billions on bonuses..your money and mine..and went on hunting junkets, and even recently spent millions sponsoring parties at a golf event!!

      Like it or not, whether it fits your economic bias or not, the only player in the game with money is the Federal government, and he did the right thing by the country, and the Republicans are once again proving to be the incarnation of Hoover Republican obstructionists in this effort to restart a dead economy. Well there are two growth areas. bankruptcy and repossession of goods abandoned in foreclosed properties. There is a former real estate guy in Florida who switched over to working for banks, cleaning out the belongings of folks who were foreclosed on, or who simply abandoned the property and mailed keys to the bank. This guy said he was getting 40 or 50 calls A DAY from the banks, and he was hiring any responsible person he could find and couldn’t keep up with the demand. Most times, the folks were out. Sometimes, he actually had to remove the personal property while the folks watched.

    • avatar JB says:

      Kim:

      I apologize if my perspective on the economy doesn’t fit within your ideology. I think your hatred for all things left of center has clouded your judgment…actually, that’s an understatement, I worry it has become pathological. Frankly, I don’t know why I bother trying to discuss anything with you; I know enough about ideological reasoning to know that the people who employ it cannot/will not be reasoned with. So on that happy note, I’ll step aside and let you return to blaming the guy who has been in office for 52 days for all the ills of the world.

      Good luck to you. 🙂

  250. avatar JimT says:

    OK, Save Bears, back on topic. What do you think should be the appropriate response to the wolf delisting? Wait for actual damage and go for a TRO making it easier for a judge to meet the standard for issuing one? Trying to use the APA as a way of invalidating the rulemaking itself by Kempthorne? Alternatives?

  251. avatar Save bears says:

    JimT,

    I am the wrong one to ask, I actually think it is time to delist and allow Montana and Idaho to manage the wildlife within their borders. I also think that the Administration has very little understanding of wildlife issues, which I said before it was ever elected, I can say, I have seen a couple of things I like that they have done, but I also think his administration has become just another in the long line of Washington DC Power brokers and don’t really expect much difference than we have had for many decades now..but take into account, I am quite cynical after dealing with the military for over 25 years as well as working for a government agency for a while.., change the name, the crap still stays the same and smells just as bad!

    • avatar JimT says:

      You know the old saying..scratch a cynic and you will find a disillusioned optimist? ~S~

      I don’t think I am where you are. I deeply distrust the states to “manage” wolves for their benefit and health. I also am distrustful of USFWS, especially Ed Bangs of late who seems to be weary, and waiting for retirement; he is changed from what he was at the beginning of this battle from what I read now. I tihnk because of the unique hatred that this predator garners of all the predators…except maybe God’s Dog the coyote, another canid…it deserves special attention as we seek to restore them to the lower 48 in as many places as practicable…I find it very odd that there is this great connection between dog and man, and this incredible hatred of the dog’s ancestor…

      I am not for absolving Obama of mistakes, but again, it has been less than three months…and the guy faces the biggest set of blunders in the last 70 years…Watchful optimism? Is that a philosophy? LOL…

  252. avatar John d. says:

    Ryan
    “Dingoes lead to the extinction of native predators on the austrailian continent. There is evidence of several species that went extinct within a few hundred years of the dingoes arrival on the austrailian continent.

    Even with the reduction efforts in certain areas, the wolf population overall has still grown and ranges expanded. Even with the proposed reductions, its not in anyones best interest for wolves to get back on the endangered species list.”

    Speculation, not evidence.
    As I said the dingo is a native species that has evolved on the continent, its closest ancestor is c. lupus indica – DNA testing links the dingo directly to wolves, not domestic dogs. Another belief is that it killed off the thylacine, however the mainland’s thylacine was extinct long before the dingo’s arrival. Even if the dingo had out-competed some of the other predatory species, that is the course of natural selection that took place over a great period of time, easing the predator into the ecosystem. The eradication of Tasmania’s 2000 thylacines by sport hunting in a mere 20 years is a different story entirely.

    The purposed culls would eliminate wolves from some areas completely, destroying years of conservation efforts and for what reason? To make hunters happy. That’s all.
    Pathetic.

    • avatar Ryan says:

      “Speculation, not evidence.
      As I said the dingo is a native species that has evolved on the continent, its closest ancestor is c. lupus indica – DNA testing links the dingo directly to wolves, not domestic dogs. Another belief is that it killed off the thylacine, however the mainland’s thylacine was extinct long before the dingo’s arrival. Even if the dingo had out-competed some of the other predatory species, that is the course of natural selection that took place over a great period of time, easing the predator into the ecosystem. The eradication of Tasmania’s 2000 thylacines by sport hunting in a mere 20 years is a different story entirely.

      The purposed culls would eliminate wolves from some areas completely, destroying years of conservation efforts and for what reason? To make hunters happy. That’s all.
      Pathetic.”

      John,
      Thanks for showing your true colors. Your simply a animal rights activist making up whatever facts you need to at the time to push your agenda.

      1. Tasmanian tigers were killed off over 100 years by farmers and ranchers, not sport hunters as you fabricated.

      http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/12/tasmanian-tiger-extinct.html

      2. Secondly, dingoes did not evolve on the austrailian continent, they were brought by some of the first aborgional settlers. Which makes them not native, no matter when logic you use. Integral part of modern Austrailian landscape granted though.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3529010.stm

      3. Your last comment showed your true colors, I love the moral superiority that all you bunny huggers feel you have over everyone else.

      • avatar John d. says:

        Ryan,

        Yes I am a member of wildlife conservation group but I do not identify with radical groups such as P.E.T.A. or A.L.F., their actions stain the reputations of other more civilised organisations.
        Just to clarify: Animal Rights are a part of the law, inhumane treatment of animals is an offence which is indeed punished. For example: harming a police animal is just as bad as harming a human officer. So let me add that to the list of cop-out arguments I’ve received over the years.

        1. I’ve got this wonderful little book about Tasmanian tigers. “Thylacine: the tragic tale of the Tasmanian tiger” by David Owen describing in detail what lead to their forced extinction and when this occurred. Advertisements for ‘tiger hunting’ in Tasmania were printed within the plate section.
        2. Sorry to disappoint, but fossil records and DNA tests say otherwise, c. lupus indica is the dingo’s ancestor. It is highly likely that the aboriginals bought dogs with them, but they were not dingoes; more often than not the aboriginals took stray dogs that were originally the property of the European settlers.
        3. Never been called that before… been called some colourful names, had a few hollow death threats too.

  253. avatar Cobra says:

    John d.
    I doubt seriously that wolves would be totally eliminated from any of the areas that you and others are concerned about. Wolves are a very smart and adaptable as you know and even if they were eliminated within a short period of time I’m sure they would find their way back to the areas that are void or of low wolf populations. Hunting alone will not put the wolf population in a tail spin like you and others think. Last article I read in the local paper said IDGF was going to try and keep populations above 500 in the state of Idaho. Most of us don’t think they’ll ever keep it that low. Most hunters will probably by a tag but very few will actively pursue a hunt for wolves. The F&G are cutting our seasons by over 50% so most hunters will spend their time trying to fill the freezer instead.

    • avatar John d. says:

      Cobra,

      This hunt is sanctioned because some among the hunting community believe that -their- elk will be annihilated by wolves and wolves alone, that without someone putting a bullet through a predator’s skull they will lose that huge buck they can never find. Or simply – they want to see a wolf skin on their wall.

      Hunting will not be the only pressure on them, let’s not forget Wildlife Services, weather conditions, pup survival rates, virus outbreaks, pack rivalries and the occasional poacher. It won’t solve the issues of hatred or misconceptions around the species and could cause an increase in livestock depredations through the disruption of pack social structure.

  254. Thank you for your many comments.

    This post is now being closed.

Calendar

March 2009
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

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: