Elk Foundation Praises Wolf Delisting in Idaho, Montana
- Thread starter noharleyyet
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Why work with Wyoming?
They dont like to work with Idaho, Montana, or the USFWS, so no reason to even waste time working with Wyoming.
Wyomings got it all figured out with the wolf issue.
They dont like to work with Idaho, Montana, or the USFWS, so no reason to even waste time working with Wyoming.
Wyomings got it all figured out with the wolf issue.
Tom
New member
Maybe Wyoming can tell the others how well their wolf management methods work?
How many hunters tags have been sold and filled in Wyoming so far, is it given somewhere? I read an article about wolf hunting tactics last week that said 25 had been shot there by hunters.
How many hunters tags have been sold and filled in Wyoming so far, is it given somewhere? I read an article about wolf hunting tactics last week that said 25 had been shot there by hunters.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Not many Wyoming residents will admit their states stance is wrong headed. In fact their almost fanatical about it.
Mountainborn
New member
Ok . . . that's about enough of listening to this garbage. i realize I'm new to this forum, but I've lived in Wyoming for over 30 years, and after working for the game and fish, and completing an all-out research project on the subject (25 page final report) I can positively say without any reservations that I know more than all of you about the Wolf issue here. We do in fact have a management plan that was originally accepted. And please, shoots-straight, inform me exactly what is "wrong headed" about it?
Wyoming is not "playing hardball" out of some bullheadedness. We have a very workable management plan that more than complies with every single requirement asked. In the northwest third of the state (where the supposed reintroduction was targeted) Wolves would be classified trophy animals and would have similar hunting laws governing them as Bears and Mountain lions. That was perfectly acceptable to everyone, and is similar to the Montana and Idaho plans. The part the greenies don't like is that in the other 2/3rds of the state (highly populated with cattle and sheep, and not part of the reintroduction plans) they would be predatory animals like a coyote and subject to hunting at any time without a license. Which only makes sense since the portions of Idaho and Montana that are being affected (Yellowstone Park primarily) is a small fraction of the size of the parts of Wyoming that's affected.
This plan was accepted and passed and it was in effect for 4 or 5 months last year. During that time only 25 wolves were killed in the predatory animal zone and none in the trophy zone because the season hadn't come yet. So there are still over 2000 wolves in this state alone that the Fed is not managing at all. The incidents of Cattle and Sheep killings are on the rise. The Elk population of Yellowstone is 24% of what it was 10 years ago. The survival rate of young elk is only 8% (which isn't big enough to sustain the population). The moose population in Yellowstone and Teton Parks is nearly extinct. And the number of wolf sightings in the Park by the public (which is what this was all supposed to be about) is negligible. Now, many wolves have been tracked south and east into Utah, Colorado, and Nebraska. You can't tell me the population hasn't "recovered".
Now, let me refer you to some of the legal facts. First, the 10th amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all rights not specifically given to the Federal government belong to states or individuals. Accordingly it has long been acknowledged that states have complete autonomy in managing its animals. The Endangered Species Act provides exceptions to this rule when a species is considered endangered BASED SOLELY UPON SCIENTIFIC POPULATION DATA. Therefore, by law, the second a population reaches sustainability it belongs to the states to manage without federal interference. When the importation (and I say importation because it's NOT a reintroduction. The Timber wolf was a timid creature that reached a maximum of 45 lbs, similar to an over sized coyote. The Canadian grey wolf is not timid, or solitary, and gets to be 150 lbs at least.) of wolves began, the agreed number to reach sustainability was 30 breeding pairs distributed throughout Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana (17 for Wyoming, 8 for Montana and 5 for Idaho) Generally there is 1 breeding pair for every 10 wolves. So the agreed population was 300 wolves. As soon as the population reached that number, and state management plans to sustain that # were in place, the de-listing must happen immediately.
So here we are, 8 years after the population reached the sustainability level. Wyoming's plan (requiring only 17 breeding pairs remember) called for 20 breeding pairs to always be in Yellowstone Park and an additional 10 pairs within the Trophy animal area. That is almost double what is required by the ESA. Currently there are at least 1600 CONFIRMED wolves in this state which is 10 times more than is required. And the only reason this de-listing won't happen is because some greenie group sued based on the "predatory" area theoretically wiping out all the wolves, and some judge placed an injunction because of it.
Now those are the facts. Who is right here? Wyoming who has bent over backwards to fulfill every requirement for this importation that we didn't want in the first place. Or the Federal FWS who are refusing to follow the 10th amendment and the requirements of the ESA based on some tree-hugging greenie group that gave them a few bucks?
Nope, this is just a further attempt to prevent the responsible management of wolves so they will outgrow themselves and wipe the deer and elk herds down to the point where hunting is no longer required for them either.
Wyoming is not "playing hardball" out of some bullheadedness. We have a very workable management plan that more than complies with every single requirement asked. In the northwest third of the state (where the supposed reintroduction was targeted) Wolves would be classified trophy animals and would have similar hunting laws governing them as Bears and Mountain lions. That was perfectly acceptable to everyone, and is similar to the Montana and Idaho plans. The part the greenies don't like is that in the other 2/3rds of the state (highly populated with cattle and sheep, and not part of the reintroduction plans) they would be predatory animals like a coyote and subject to hunting at any time without a license. Which only makes sense since the portions of Idaho and Montana that are being affected (Yellowstone Park primarily) is a small fraction of the size of the parts of Wyoming that's affected.
This plan was accepted and passed and it was in effect for 4 or 5 months last year. During that time only 25 wolves were killed in the predatory animal zone and none in the trophy zone because the season hadn't come yet. So there are still over 2000 wolves in this state alone that the Fed is not managing at all. The incidents of Cattle and Sheep killings are on the rise. The Elk population of Yellowstone is 24% of what it was 10 years ago. The survival rate of young elk is only 8% (which isn't big enough to sustain the population). The moose population in Yellowstone and Teton Parks is nearly extinct. And the number of wolf sightings in the Park by the public (which is what this was all supposed to be about) is negligible. Now, many wolves have been tracked south and east into Utah, Colorado, and Nebraska. You can't tell me the population hasn't "recovered".
Now, let me refer you to some of the legal facts. First, the 10th amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all rights not specifically given to the Federal government belong to states or individuals. Accordingly it has long been acknowledged that states have complete autonomy in managing its animals. The Endangered Species Act provides exceptions to this rule when a species is considered endangered BASED SOLELY UPON SCIENTIFIC POPULATION DATA. Therefore, by law, the second a population reaches sustainability it belongs to the states to manage without federal interference. When the importation (and I say importation because it's NOT a reintroduction. The Timber wolf was a timid creature that reached a maximum of 45 lbs, similar to an over sized coyote. The Canadian grey wolf is not timid, or solitary, and gets to be 150 lbs at least.) of wolves began, the agreed number to reach sustainability was 30 breeding pairs distributed throughout Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana (17 for Wyoming, 8 for Montana and 5 for Idaho) Generally there is 1 breeding pair for every 10 wolves. So the agreed population was 300 wolves. As soon as the population reached that number, and state management plans to sustain that # were in place, the de-listing must happen immediately.
So here we are, 8 years after the population reached the sustainability level. Wyoming's plan (requiring only 17 breeding pairs remember) called for 20 breeding pairs to always be in Yellowstone Park and an additional 10 pairs within the Trophy animal area. That is almost double what is required by the ESA. Currently there are at least 1600 CONFIRMED wolves in this state which is 10 times more than is required. And the only reason this de-listing won't happen is because some greenie group sued based on the "predatory" area theoretically wiping out all the wolves, and some judge placed an injunction because of it.
Now those are the facts. Who is right here? Wyoming who has bent over backwards to fulfill every requirement for this importation that we didn't want in the first place. Or the Federal FWS who are refusing to follow the 10th amendment and the requirements of the ESA based on some tree-hugging greenie group that gave them a few bucks?
Nope, this is just a further attempt to prevent the responsible management of wolves so they will outgrow themselves and wipe the deer and elk herds down to the point where hunting is no longer required for them either.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wyoming has not bent over backwards...and what they did was wrong-headed just like SS said.
Heres why.
Wyoming is playing hardball, no question of that. They want to be able to basically, state-wide shoot wolves on sight. Yes, I realize that there are two classifications, two "zones". But, heres the problem, you have a bunch of red-neck dumb asses in Wyoming that I assure you will kill every wolf they see IN the recovery area and then "migrate" that wolf out of the recovery area into the predator zone in the back of their jacked up 1976 F250.
Just for the record, a couple wolves were killed, or suspected to have been killed, in the 4-5 months you mentioned, in the recovery area illegally. That sure didnt help the court case, I assure you.
Thats the problem with Wyomings plan. An easy fix would be to classify the wolf as a trophy animal STATEWIDE. If problem wolves are found outside the recovery area, let those being effected "manage' them as they fit via other legal means (kill permits issued to ranchers, gov. hunters, etc.).
I also question how much you know about the wolf issue when you make these kinds of claims, "Wyoming who has bent over backwards to fulfill every requirement for this importation that we didn't want in the first place.'
Really?
According to whom?
I sat in on the earliest scoping meetings to the final EIS on this issue, making my comments part of the public record. I've also researched and read the final reports on the EA and EIS, in particular the summary of the comments recieved from the open comment periods. Its fair to note that in EVERY single meeting I attended a vast majority of all to comment as part of the public record were IN FAVOR of reintroduction. If opposition was so strong...why didnt those that are so outspoken about nobody wanting wolves...so quiet during the time their comments were so critical??? Makes no sense.
Funny that what I found in the official documents flies directly in the face of what you claim, that Wyoming didnt want wolves reintroduced. Well over 90% of the comments received were in favor of reintroduction...true in the individual states of MT, ID, and WY as well as nation wide. If the anti-wolf crowd sat on their butts and didnt comment THEN (which they obviously didnt)...I have no sympathy for them NOW.
Lastly, it doesnt make any difference why WY's plan is no longer acceptable, its time for Wyoming to catch a clue, make the necessary adjustments to satisfy the ESA and the judge and get on with PROPER management. Enough marlboro man grandstanding by Wyoming. Time to fulfill their obligations.
Oh, almost forgot...you better recheck your "facts" on the wolf population in Wyoming...seems the leading experts arent agreeing with your "facts"...
Wolf population statistics
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
October 25, 2008
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports:
Here is the 2008 mid-year wolf and depredation estimates:
Montana: 360 Wolves, 74 Packs, 36 Breeding pairs
Idaho: 771 Wolves, 89 Packs, 39 Breeding pairs
Wyoming: 332 Wolves, 34 Packs, 22 Breeding pairs
________________________________________
Total: 1455 Wolves, 197 Packs, +97 Breeding pairs
In addition, wolves killed 10 dogs so far this year in the region, as well as 6 llamas.
In response to livestock depredations in 2008, wolves were lethally controlled as follows:
Montana: 60 (up from 50 in 2007)
Idaho: 81 (up from 40 in 2007)
Wyoming: 31 (down from 45 in 2007).
It should be noted that the control numbers for Wyoming include wolves lethally removed in agency authorized control actions, including legal defense of property by private citizens - and does not include wolves killed in Wyoming’s predatory animal area by hunters [9 wolves].
Livestock killed by wolves (confirmed):
Montana: 44 Cattle, 39 Sheep
Idaho: 81 Cattle, 189 Sheep
Wyoming: 45 Cattle, 16 Sheep
_____________________________________
Total: 169 Cattle, 242 Sheep
Heres why.
Wyoming is playing hardball, no question of that. They want to be able to basically, state-wide shoot wolves on sight. Yes, I realize that there are two classifications, two "zones". But, heres the problem, you have a bunch of red-neck dumb asses in Wyoming that I assure you will kill every wolf they see IN the recovery area and then "migrate" that wolf out of the recovery area into the predator zone in the back of their jacked up 1976 F250.
Just for the record, a couple wolves were killed, or suspected to have been killed, in the 4-5 months you mentioned, in the recovery area illegally. That sure didnt help the court case, I assure you.
Thats the problem with Wyomings plan. An easy fix would be to classify the wolf as a trophy animal STATEWIDE. If problem wolves are found outside the recovery area, let those being effected "manage' them as they fit via other legal means (kill permits issued to ranchers, gov. hunters, etc.).
I also question how much you know about the wolf issue when you make these kinds of claims, "Wyoming who has bent over backwards to fulfill every requirement for this importation that we didn't want in the first place.'
Really?
According to whom?
I sat in on the earliest scoping meetings to the final EIS on this issue, making my comments part of the public record. I've also researched and read the final reports on the EA and EIS, in particular the summary of the comments recieved from the open comment periods. Its fair to note that in EVERY single meeting I attended a vast majority of all to comment as part of the public record were IN FAVOR of reintroduction. If opposition was so strong...why didnt those that are so outspoken about nobody wanting wolves...so quiet during the time their comments were so critical??? Makes no sense.
Funny that what I found in the official documents flies directly in the face of what you claim, that Wyoming didnt want wolves reintroduced. Well over 90% of the comments received were in favor of reintroduction...true in the individual states of MT, ID, and WY as well as nation wide. If the anti-wolf crowd sat on their butts and didnt comment THEN (which they obviously didnt)...I have no sympathy for them NOW.
Lastly, it doesnt make any difference why WY's plan is no longer acceptable, its time for Wyoming to catch a clue, make the necessary adjustments to satisfy the ESA and the judge and get on with PROPER management. Enough marlboro man grandstanding by Wyoming. Time to fulfill their obligations.
Oh, almost forgot...you better recheck your "facts" on the wolf population in Wyoming...seems the leading experts arent agreeing with your "facts"...
Wolf population statistics
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
October 25, 2008
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports:
Here is the 2008 mid-year wolf and depredation estimates:
Montana: 360 Wolves, 74 Packs, 36 Breeding pairs
Idaho: 771 Wolves, 89 Packs, 39 Breeding pairs
Wyoming: 332 Wolves, 34 Packs, 22 Breeding pairs
________________________________________
Total: 1455 Wolves, 197 Packs, +97 Breeding pairs
In addition, wolves killed 10 dogs so far this year in the region, as well as 6 llamas.
In response to livestock depredations in 2008, wolves were lethally controlled as follows:
Montana: 60 (up from 50 in 2007)
Idaho: 81 (up from 40 in 2007)
Wyoming: 31 (down from 45 in 2007).
It should be noted that the control numbers for Wyoming include wolves lethally removed in agency authorized control actions, including legal defense of property by private citizens - and does not include wolves killed in Wyoming’s predatory animal area by hunters [9 wolves].
Livestock killed by wolves (confirmed):
Montana: 44 Cattle, 39 Sheep
Idaho: 81 Cattle, 189 Sheep
Wyoming: 45 Cattle, 16 Sheep
_____________________________________
Total: 169 Cattle, 242 Sheep
Last edited:
Mountainborn
New member
We have already satisfied the ESA. Like I said, written within the ESA is the provision that the decision to list or delist a species shall be based SOLEY upon scientific population data. So, according to the ESA, Wyoming's management plan is none of the Fed's business as long as the minimum population is maintained. And it is currently many times what is needed from the original plan. Wyoming's plan will keep it double what is required.
As to the dual classification. There is a reason for a predatory animal classification in 2/3rds of the state. Wolves don't belong there, and they never have. That's the problem with replacing a species like they did. They didn't reintroduce anything. They brought down a species from Canada that is as much like the Rocky Mountain Timber Wolf as a Coyote is to a fox. The grey wolves are expanding much more than the timber wolf ever did. They kill many times more animals than timber wolves did. And they don't know boundaries. The 2/3rds of the state that is classified as predatory needs the ability to eradicate wolves from that area, not just "manage" them. Soon it will turn into another Grizzly bear and Mountain lion "management" that only issues one tenth of the licenses required to maintain the population rather than letting it flourish out of control. Pretty soon, even a rural area like Wyoming will be experiencing the same kind of nonsense as California with a Cougar attacking pets and children every week. Only here, it will be wolves.
Most of the meetings you mentioned were not well attended by the majority of opponents because we all knew that we were all opposed to it so we didn't see the point. Plus we had jobs and lives. Even so, most of the support for introducing wolves was for bringing in the much smaller Red Wolf, which is the closest relative of the Rocky Mountain timber wolf up from the Southwest, not the Canadian Grey. There were in fact several timber wolves left in Wyoming before this introduction (I personally saw 3 during pack trips in the Yellowstone Wilderness). But as I said, they are shy, reclusive, and solitary creatures, unlike their distant cousins from the north who have, by the way, completely destroyed any of the real Rocky Mountain Timber wolves who were left. So that's the only thing this supposed recovery effort has accomplished, the extinction of the original.
You might as well say the Idaho wild horse is endangered and import a bunch of African Zebras to replace it.
As to your population estimates, you'll find that those numbers are thrown around by the USFWS, not by the Wyoming Game and Fish. No one knows where the USFWS got those estimates because it's the Wyoming personnel who actually do the counting. And every Game Warden and biologist I've talked to have said (unofficially, off the record because they don't want to lose their job) that even the Wyoming estimates of 1500 are extremely low for what's actually here.
Even so, your numbers still show that the recovery goal as been exceeded and the Fed does not have the right to refuse to de-list when Wyoming has a feasible plan.
Oh, thanks for calling all of us Wyomingites a bunch of rednecks too. That's really an intelligent argument. "You assure me" that they'll kill everything . . . oh great, and who are you? Do you even know anyone in Wyoming outside of your little tree-huggin' clique? Since when is rule of law superseded because of some random assurances by you? If people break the law, they should be tried and punished if guilty. But since when does the possibility of someone maybe breaking a law condone the government refusing to obey the laws and policies already in place?
No, Wyoming is not wrong headed. Wyoming is standing up for our Constitutionally guaranteed rights against a federal bureaucracy that are pandering to a bunch of eastern morons who think wolves are cute and cuddly. If they want to restore wolves to their natural habitat, then release a few into Central Park, NY. There was a reason our ancestors eradicated the blighters in the first place.
As to the dual classification. There is a reason for a predatory animal classification in 2/3rds of the state. Wolves don't belong there, and they never have. That's the problem with replacing a species like they did. They didn't reintroduce anything. They brought down a species from Canada that is as much like the Rocky Mountain Timber Wolf as a Coyote is to a fox. The grey wolves are expanding much more than the timber wolf ever did. They kill many times more animals than timber wolves did. And they don't know boundaries. The 2/3rds of the state that is classified as predatory needs the ability to eradicate wolves from that area, not just "manage" them. Soon it will turn into another Grizzly bear and Mountain lion "management" that only issues one tenth of the licenses required to maintain the population rather than letting it flourish out of control. Pretty soon, even a rural area like Wyoming will be experiencing the same kind of nonsense as California with a Cougar attacking pets and children every week. Only here, it will be wolves.
Most of the meetings you mentioned were not well attended by the majority of opponents because we all knew that we were all opposed to it so we didn't see the point. Plus we had jobs and lives. Even so, most of the support for introducing wolves was for bringing in the much smaller Red Wolf, which is the closest relative of the Rocky Mountain timber wolf up from the Southwest, not the Canadian Grey. There were in fact several timber wolves left in Wyoming before this introduction (I personally saw 3 during pack trips in the Yellowstone Wilderness). But as I said, they are shy, reclusive, and solitary creatures, unlike their distant cousins from the north who have, by the way, completely destroyed any of the real Rocky Mountain Timber wolves who were left. So that's the only thing this supposed recovery effort has accomplished, the extinction of the original.
You might as well say the Idaho wild horse is endangered and import a bunch of African Zebras to replace it.
As to your population estimates, you'll find that those numbers are thrown around by the USFWS, not by the Wyoming Game and Fish. No one knows where the USFWS got those estimates because it's the Wyoming personnel who actually do the counting. And every Game Warden and biologist I've talked to have said (unofficially, off the record because they don't want to lose their job) that even the Wyoming estimates of 1500 are extremely low for what's actually here.
Even so, your numbers still show that the recovery goal as been exceeded and the Fed does not have the right to refuse to de-list when Wyoming has a feasible plan.
Oh, thanks for calling all of us Wyomingites a bunch of rednecks too. That's really an intelligent argument. "You assure me" that they'll kill everything . . . oh great, and who are you? Do you even know anyone in Wyoming outside of your little tree-huggin' clique? Since when is rule of law superseded because of some random assurances by you? If people break the law, they should be tried and punished if guilty. But since when does the possibility of someone maybe breaking a law condone the government refusing to obey the laws and policies already in place?
No, Wyoming is not wrong headed. Wyoming is standing up for our Constitutionally guaranteed rights against a federal bureaucracy that are pandering to a bunch of eastern morons who think wolves are cute and cuddly. If they want to restore wolves to their natural habitat, then release a few into Central Park, NY. There was a reason our ancestors eradicated the blighters in the first place.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Moutainborn,
You may want to review the Endangered Species Act...pay particular attention to the parts pertaining to State VS. Federal laws and regulations.
I would direct your attention to Sec. 6 (c) 2 (f)...pay attention to whether or not Federal Laws related to the ESA supercede State law. Also pay attention to the details of any state law being VOID if determined that it will be in any way in conflict with the ESA.
Its also more than clear that any state plan is not satisfied until the courts as well as the secretary deem them so, its all in the act, black and white, crystal clear. I doubt you've ever bothered to read it. They most certainly are within the law to refuse to accept Wyomings plan. If its not...then explain why Wyoming plan has not been accepted and why MT and ID's has. Wyoming does not have an acceptable plan, so the Feds are fully within their regulatory rights to deny Wyomings current plan. Thats why its being denied and why the courts are ruling against Wyoming, its not acceptable.
Wyomings constitutional rights are not being violated in this case, and thats a given.
Also, could you explain to me how the wolves in MT, that had migrated south from Canada into the S. Fork of the Flathead, Rocky Mountain Front, and Ninemile drainage are not the same taxanomically as the wolves released into Yellowstone and Central Idaho?
I could save you the trouble and tell you there is no difference in size, no difference genetically, etc. but I like a good story.
Also, could you point out in the EA or EIS where the Red Wolf was to be reintroduced VS Canadian gray wolves, the same species that was already naturally present in the areas of Montana I referenced? In reading the EA and EIS, I somehow missed the reference to Red Wolf in the entire document.
Also, for the record, the wolves that were already known to exist in Montana prior to reintroduction have not been wiped out by the ones that were reintroduced.
Like I've already said, I have no sympathy for those that chose not to attend scoping meetings as critical as those revolving around the ESA and wolves. You blame complacency on having a job? Really, you even know how many meetings and how many open comment periods there were with this issue? I do...and you wont be telling me anytime soon that all these concerned citizens were "too busy" with work and their lives. Strange that they all now have time to bitch about wolves???
Also, your other excuses for not liking reintroduction are all classic:
1. Why do you think our uneducated, hick ancestors wiped out wolves. (care to explain why our ancestors nearly wiped out pronghorn, elk, bison...good reason for that too?)
2. They reintroduced a different species
3. Wolves will kill my children.
4. Release them in NYC.
I apologize in advance for not believing your "secret sources who will lose their jobs" regarding population estimates of wolves. I find it very odd that a professional biologist would lose their job for reporting factual information obtained through viable population surveys. Just doesnt make sense, and when things dont make sense...theres usually an untruth there some place. I also apologize for not believing that you "know more than all of you about the Wolf issue here". Pretty obvious that isnt the case.
As to the Wyomingite redneck reference...sometimes the truth is more than some can handle. Didnt mean to offend, but theres a good reason for the feds to be concerned over Wyomings current "plan" and dual classification.
To answer your last question, yes, I know a bunch of people in Wyoming...even if they're all a "clique of tree huggers".
You may want to review the Endangered Species Act...pay particular attention to the parts pertaining to State VS. Federal laws and regulations.
I would direct your attention to Sec. 6 (c) 2 (f)...pay attention to whether or not Federal Laws related to the ESA supercede State law. Also pay attention to the details of any state law being VOID if determined that it will be in any way in conflict with the ESA.
Its also more than clear that any state plan is not satisfied until the courts as well as the secretary deem them so, its all in the act, black and white, crystal clear. I doubt you've ever bothered to read it. They most certainly are within the law to refuse to accept Wyomings plan. If its not...then explain why Wyoming plan has not been accepted and why MT and ID's has. Wyoming does not have an acceptable plan, so the Feds are fully within their regulatory rights to deny Wyomings current plan. Thats why its being denied and why the courts are ruling against Wyoming, its not acceptable.
Wyomings constitutional rights are not being violated in this case, and thats a given.
Also, could you explain to me how the wolves in MT, that had migrated south from Canada into the S. Fork of the Flathead, Rocky Mountain Front, and Ninemile drainage are not the same taxanomically as the wolves released into Yellowstone and Central Idaho?
I could save you the trouble and tell you there is no difference in size, no difference genetically, etc. but I like a good story.
Also, could you point out in the EA or EIS where the Red Wolf was to be reintroduced VS Canadian gray wolves, the same species that was already naturally present in the areas of Montana I referenced? In reading the EA and EIS, I somehow missed the reference to Red Wolf in the entire document.
Also, for the record, the wolves that were already known to exist in Montana prior to reintroduction have not been wiped out by the ones that were reintroduced.
Like I've already said, I have no sympathy for those that chose not to attend scoping meetings as critical as those revolving around the ESA and wolves. You blame complacency on having a job? Really, you even know how many meetings and how many open comment periods there were with this issue? I do...and you wont be telling me anytime soon that all these concerned citizens were "too busy" with work and their lives. Strange that they all now have time to bitch about wolves???
Also, your other excuses for not liking reintroduction are all classic:
1. Why do you think our uneducated, hick ancestors wiped out wolves. (care to explain why our ancestors nearly wiped out pronghorn, elk, bison...good reason for that too?)
2. They reintroduced a different species
3. Wolves will kill my children.
4. Release them in NYC.
I apologize in advance for not believing your "secret sources who will lose their jobs" regarding population estimates of wolves. I find it very odd that a professional biologist would lose their job for reporting factual information obtained through viable population surveys. Just doesnt make sense, and when things dont make sense...theres usually an untruth there some place. I also apologize for not believing that you "know more than all of you about the Wolf issue here". Pretty obvious that isnt the case.
As to the Wyomingite redneck reference...sometimes the truth is more than some can handle. Didnt mean to offend, but theres a good reason for the feds to be concerned over Wyomings current "plan" and dual classification.
To answer your last question, yes, I know a bunch of people in Wyoming...even if they're all a "clique of tree huggers".
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Everything you wrote after this could go in a fairytale. It's mostly wrong headed. You buying into the fact the original wolf was 45lbs says it all. Most of the wolves in Montana's recovery (as Buzz stated) came from regular Canadian wolves that migrated down the continental divide. Even without reintroduction, how long do you think it would have been before the exact same wolf would have been in Wyoming anyway? You believe that these wolves were keep at the boarder before white man came to Montana? Come on use some common sense. Or maybe that's not common in Wyoming.
Buzz pretty much showed you where you are ignorant, hope your 25 pages of bull wasn't read by anyone other than Wyomingites.
Tom
New member
So, what am I supposed to do? Who do I write too? Basically, I'd like to shoot the heck out of the wolves. We're part of the natural system, we get rid of wolves so we can have their food, not them.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Tom, if I get you right, you want to shoot the heck out of the competition. The animals that compete with you for the available game. You should first start by shooting all the bears, coyotes, lions, and your fellow hunter. Human hunters are responsible for a lot of the declines in my neck of the woods. Mismanagement is the reason.
Mountainborn
New member
Ok, so the ESA says the fed can override the state. But that's not what the Constitution says, and seeing that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and is far superior to the ESA; I challenge the validity of the ESA at all in this regard. The fact remains that the DECISION TO DE-LIST or List a species on the ESL is supposed to be made based on the ability to survive, and that is linked predominately with population. The goal has been met, therefore they should be de-listed. And since the Constitution gives the states the right to manage animals as they see fit, that's the end of it. Of course when you throw all the bureaucratic red tape and federal regulations (that often contradict the Constitution) then the courts have to sort it all out. But the fact is, it was 2 years going through the whole process in the first place, and we passed the courts and the bureaucracies. It was a done deal. The only reason it's back again is because these new unfounded lawsuits give the fed another opportunity to try to squeeze us some more. This round will end the exact same as the last round, with Wyoming keeping it's plan, and the Fed running out of excuses to hold things up.
As for the Timber wolf being 45 pounds. Look it up. The 1890 Census of animals in the Yellowstone area shows no resident pack of wolves, but common sightings of transitory wolves in the northern and eastern regions of the area. The description is that they were bigger than coyotes, but not as big as the Eastern Wolves that trappers were familiar with. So that is the historic relevance of wolves in Wyoming. Unless you're trying to claim that "History" is only the last 15 years, not the last 120.
I will grant that the Canadian wolves were migrating to Montana, but they had not reached Wyoming yet, and are therefore not of historic consideration in this discussion. In fact, it was this fact, and this fact alone, that finally convinced many people in Wyoming to support the introduction. They believed that with the introduction there would at least be some means of managing the wolves, whereas the migration would allow no such measures. However, we were also promised that the wolves would be kept within Yellowstone Park, and not the outlying areas which they now infest, and that Wyoming would be allowed to manage them as soon as the recovery goal was met (which it has been for the last several years).
And again, I say enough of this. It is obvious that you people arguing to keep the foreign wolves around have no interest in the Ranching industry, and are falling into step with the other greenies that want to eliminate hunting altogether. It's pointless for those of us who were born and raised here, and know how things work, to try to argue with you imports that want to dictate to the rest of us how we should live.
Tom, just contact the Wyoming legislature and encourage them to keep up the fight. Randall Luthi is particularly involved with this issue. The Governor and a very high majority of our state legislature are firmly standing for the Rights of our State. We'll be out shooting the varmints again before you know it.
As for the Timber wolf being 45 pounds. Look it up. The 1890 Census of animals in the Yellowstone area shows no resident pack of wolves, but common sightings of transitory wolves in the northern and eastern regions of the area. The description is that they were bigger than coyotes, but not as big as the Eastern Wolves that trappers were familiar with. So that is the historic relevance of wolves in Wyoming. Unless you're trying to claim that "History" is only the last 15 years, not the last 120.
I will grant that the Canadian wolves were migrating to Montana, but they had not reached Wyoming yet, and are therefore not of historic consideration in this discussion. In fact, it was this fact, and this fact alone, that finally convinced many people in Wyoming to support the introduction. They believed that with the introduction there would at least be some means of managing the wolves, whereas the migration would allow no such measures. However, we were also promised that the wolves would be kept within Yellowstone Park, and not the outlying areas which they now infest, and that Wyoming would be allowed to manage them as soon as the recovery goal was met (which it has been for the last several years).
And again, I say enough of this. It is obvious that you people arguing to keep the foreign wolves around have no interest in the Ranching industry, and are falling into step with the other greenies that want to eliminate hunting altogether. It's pointless for those of us who were born and raised here, and know how things work, to try to argue with you imports that want to dictate to the rest of us how we should live.
Tom, just contact the Wyoming legislature and encourage them to keep up the fight. Randall Luthi is particularly involved with this issue. The Governor and a very high majority of our state legislature are firmly standing for the Rights of our State. We'll be out shooting the varmints again before you know it.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Mountainborn, I'm going to dispute you again on your data.
1). Your first paragraph is stating that state law supersedes Federal law. The last time I checked it was the other way around. Although the constitution gives each state the right to manage the game, it clearly says the game doesn't belong to the state. You need to read the Wolf Recovery EIS. In it you'll find that each state had to have a management plan in place that guarantees that the animal will be recognized and have a right to exist. Before they will be delisted, even if they met the required number to be delisted. It doesn't say anywhere that they'll be held to only the Yellowstone park region. If you can prove me wrong please do. It was proven that Wyoming's plan wouldn't guarantee genetic transfer of genes. That's why we all had to re list last year.
2). Your second paragraph is the dumbest. You really need to give up the 45 lb wolf theory. The first white men to see wolves in Montana were Lewis and Clark. Here's a small statement concerning the wolf they saw in Montana:
Lewis & Clark Corps of Discovery 1804-1806
Wolves were known to the expedition members who originated from New Hampshire to Kentucky; Virginia to the Missouri country. In the Great Plains they encountered wolves of immense size and pale coloring.
"The large wolves are very numerous, they are of a light Colr. large & has long hair with Corrs fur." Clark, September 18th 1804
"I have killed a very large and the whitest woolf I have seen." Lewis, July 8th 1806
Lewis observed the wolf packs moving along with the great herds of Bison and heard the wolves' song.
"We scarcely see a gang of buffaloe without observing a parsel of those faithfull shepherds on their skirts in readiness to take care of the mamed & wounded. the large wolf never barks, but howls as those of the atlantic states do." Lewis, May 5th 1805
*All journal entries as originally written by Corps Members.
I doubt that a 45 lb. dog would be considered large if they knew what eastern wolves size was.
Most white mean at the time referred to the coyote as a bush wolf.
3). void because of 2
4).[QUOTE And again, I say enough of this. It is obvious that you people arguing to keep the foreign wolves around have no interest in the Ranching industry, and are falling into step with the other Greene's that want to eliminate hunting altogether. It's pointless for those of us who were born and raised here, and know how things work, to try to argue with you imports that want to dictate to the rest of us how we should live. ][/QUOTE]
I'm a 5th generation Bitterroot, my family has lived here since 1865, ranching, farming, and hunting. My grandad killed wolves in this valley pre 1930, Griz also. I can assure you they where way larger than 45 lbs. But I'm sure because you were born in Wyoming that doesn't count. I in no way side with Greene's, on this issue. I rarely side with Wyomingites either. Maybe Buzz, but that's about it. You guys are totally filled up with the cool-aid that's dished out over there. I could care less but I want the record and historic perspective to be viewed as it really is. Common since isn't common anymore.
1). Your first paragraph is stating that state law supersedes Federal law. The last time I checked it was the other way around. Although the constitution gives each state the right to manage the game, it clearly says the game doesn't belong to the state. You need to read the Wolf Recovery EIS. In it you'll find that each state had to have a management plan in place that guarantees that the animal will be recognized and have a right to exist. Before they will be delisted, even if they met the required number to be delisted. It doesn't say anywhere that they'll be held to only the Yellowstone park region. If you can prove me wrong please do. It was proven that Wyoming's plan wouldn't guarantee genetic transfer of genes. That's why we all had to re list last year.
2). Your second paragraph is the dumbest. You really need to give up the 45 lb wolf theory. The first white men to see wolves in Montana were Lewis and Clark. Here's a small statement concerning the wolf they saw in Montana:
Lewis & Clark Corps of Discovery 1804-1806
Wolves were known to the expedition members who originated from New Hampshire to Kentucky; Virginia to the Missouri country. In the Great Plains they encountered wolves of immense size and pale coloring.
"The large wolves are very numerous, they are of a light Colr. large & has long hair with Corrs fur." Clark, September 18th 1804
"I have killed a very large and the whitest woolf I have seen." Lewis, July 8th 1806
Lewis observed the wolf packs moving along with the great herds of Bison and heard the wolves' song.
"We scarcely see a gang of buffaloe without observing a parsel of those faithfull shepherds on their skirts in readiness to take care of the mamed & wounded. the large wolf never barks, but howls as those of the atlantic states do." Lewis, May 5th 1805
*All journal entries as originally written by Corps Members.
I doubt that a 45 lb. dog would be considered large if they knew what eastern wolves size was.
Most white mean at the time referred to the coyote as a bush wolf.
3). void because of 2
4).[QUOTE And again, I say enough of this. It is obvious that you people arguing to keep the foreign wolves around have no interest in the Ranching industry, and are falling into step with the other Greene's that want to eliminate hunting altogether. It's pointless for those of us who were born and raised here, and know how things work, to try to argue with you imports that want to dictate to the rest of us how we should live. ][/QUOTE]
I'm a 5th generation Bitterroot, my family has lived here since 1865, ranching, farming, and hunting. My grandad killed wolves in this valley pre 1930, Griz also. I can assure you they where way larger than 45 lbs. But I'm sure because you were born in Wyoming that doesn't count. I in no way side with Greene's, on this issue. I rarely side with Wyomingites either. Maybe Buzz, but that's about it. You guys are totally filled up with the cool-aid that's dished out over there. I could care less but I want the record and historic perspective to be viewed as it really is. Common since isn't common anymore.
Similar threads
