This was forwarded to me from a serious elk hunter in the Yellowstone area. I should put it on the Political site but I thought it too important and needs to be read and circulated.

Subject: "Yellowstone is Dying: An Affidavit/Article to Secretary of Interior Gail Norton presented on our behalf by United States Senator Conrad Burns"

Get a copy of the fall "RANGE" mag and read the 48 page supplement on the ESA. I live on a horse ranch in the foothills of the Absaroka Mountains 25 miles north of Yellowstone National Park. I exercise my horses and myself in the mountains everyday year round. When I observe and participate in nature it is with the eye of a big game hunter and biology major, I received my degree from the University of Notre Dame, back in the early 1970's. In those days ecology was a science, now it has become a religion.

I've noticed a change in those mountains over the past 7 years, and I'm certain if the American people had any idea what was going on in Yellowstone and the surrounding area, they would be appalled and very angry. Prior to wolf introduction in 1995, there were 19,500 elk in the great northern Yellowstone elk herd, over 300 big horn sheep in the ten square miles around Gardiner, Montana, abundant moose, antelope and mule deer. Now we have fewer than 10,000 elk and 40 big horn sheep. Montana state moose biologist Kurt Alt tells us the moose are all but wiped out, the National Academy of Science in its' March 2002 report tells us that the antelope population is a small fraction of what it was. A Montana Game Warden north of Yellowstone Park tells us the mule deer population is also in real trouble. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wolf Project Coordinator admits in the press that there are 560 wolves and 150 pups this year with anywhere between 34 to 46 breeding pairs depending on your definition of breeding pair. The Project Coordinator himself, Ed Bangs says, "There are too many wolves." Despite intense public pressure to delist and control wolves, the outlook for delisting in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is very bleak. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife now wants to hold us hostage until Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado gets a good healthy dose of wolves.

Wolf introduction has become a big business. Defenders of Wildlife alone raise over $16,000,000 a year tax-free. Sending bulk mail to urban soccer moms with crosshairs on a wolf puppy telling them to send money to save wolves from being poisoned and their babies from being clubbed to death in their dens by the mean old ranchers. They never mentioned that the mean old rancher that would do this would be convicted of a felony and face a $100, 000 fine and a year in federal prison for violating the Endangered Species Act.

Wolf recovery is also big business for biologists. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has created a huge bureaucracy originally formed to introduce 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone Park, but now expanded to put wolves into any rural area in America where there is an agricultural or hunting culture. If you can't make money in spotted owls, then get into wolves, the DOT.com job for biologists.

Lawyers, especially lawyers, love wolves too! Environmental organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club; National Wildlife Federation have legal departments that rival IBM and GM in size. They are financialy motivated to sue over ESA issues. The Federal court system,according to Kris Nolan,Esq.USFWS routinely awards them fees and costs if they are the catalysts for legal action and win. What kind of lawyers like wolves? Ted Turner hosted 140 lawyers from the "Earth Justice League" at a resort a couple of miles from my home. One out of six called ahead and ordered a "vegan" diet which excludes any animal or fish product. I have no problem with their diet, just when they use the judicial system to impose it on the rest of us.

The organization I formed in 1999 has 3742 members, most of whom live in the area just north of Yellowstone. We have been calling attention to the total annihilation of our game herds for 4 years now and were roundly criticized as alarmists and extremists as the wolf recovery team assured the public through the dutiful press, that the elk herd which acts as a buffer between predators and our cattle industry was in fine shape. Eventually our cries for help were heard this year by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Montana House Fish and Wildlife and Parks Committee, Dan Fuchs and Joe Balyeat. Both senior lawmakers accuse the wolf bureaucracy of a cover-up. They came down to count the ratios of calf to cow elk themselves. We went into the field and came up with a ratio of cow elk to last years surviving calves of 12 per hundred. This statistic was verified by the National Park Service survey that was released shortly there after. The 23-year average that proceeded wolf recovery was 33 calves per hundred cows.The fur started flying in our State Legislature and in the Montana press when Carrie Schaeffer of Michigan Tech University, working under Dr. Rolf Peterson did a study that came to surface in 1998-1999,and was made public this past March'02. She counted 4600 head of elk. This was huge scientific sampling. She concluded that the calf to cow (elk) ratio was zero to ten per hundred, confirming our assertions over the past four years that a biological crisis of catastrophic proportions had been going on. Yellowstone Park knew of the Schaeffer study, withheld the information from the American public in order to protect their wolf bureaucracy, and intentionally lied to the press for 4 solid years. The decision to surpress scientific information was made at the top by Glenn Plumb, Yellowstone's' supervisory biologist.

When wolf recovery was proposed in 1988, Congress appropriated monies to study the proposed experiment. Congress instructed those who made the request to introduce wolves that: hunting should not be hurt, the local economy should not be hurt, and the Grizzly Bear should not be impacted. With these marching orders from Congress, a team of 15 PH. D's who specialized in Predator/Prey biology came back and published "Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to Congress and the Department of Interior Vol. 1" in 1991." They said the 250 square miles in and around Yellowstone could hold 78-100 wolves at full capacity if it was done over a 10-20 year period. This esteemed body of scientists insisted in 1991 and again in September 1995, because no one knew for sure what impact a new keystone predator would have on the unadapted prey species, that intensive monitoring of the prey should be done, otherwise the Yellowstone Ecosystem would be forever and irreparably harmed. (See P.11 Peterson, Gassaway & Messier report to DOI dated 9/95) America deserves to know who authorized the wolf recovery team to ignore the Delphi 15. Yellowstone Park and the wolf recovery team admitted in the Bozeman Chronicle in the winter of 2000 that these studies were not done each year citing bad weather, lack of funding, lack of equipment, and lack of qualified personnel.

America deserves to know why the mandated studies were not done. We in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have jumped through hoop after hoop trying to get the wolf delisted from the List of Endangered Species so we can manage this destructive predator and prolific breeder ourselves.

Like Islam has been hijacked by extremists, environmental organizations have been hijacked by extremists. They now threaten to terrorize us with their biological weapon the wolf. We can look forward to being tied up in court for eternity if we try and delist the wolf as an endangered specie from it's un-deserved protected status as; "experimental non-essential". The ultimate strategy is to buy more time for this predator to breed at a 34% rate per year. Each wolf eats a biomass of at least 25 Elk per year; not counting the surplus killing of elk calves. We now have at least 720 wolves; and in 3 short years we could easily be at 1732. This means 43,300 elk per year are going to be fed to wolves without any new replacement calves. Since Montana, according to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation only has 130,000 elk, it wont be long until the wolf turns its attention to beef cattle, in a degree much larger than is already occurring.

Chris Smith, Chief of Staff for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks stated May 31, 2002 to the press after hearing the U.S. Fish Wildlife service presentation regarding delisting the wolf " this will be tied up in political and legal knots for years to come."

Our only hope in Montana and the other affected states is asserting our sovereignty over our land and natural resources. I know that if I was to be elected Governor of Montana in '04 that I would set an agenda that would take our state, its land and its natural resources (of which wildlife is one) back from Federal Agencies and the environmental extremist organizations who have imposed their political agendas on us. Burdensome Federal interference and regulation has cost Montana jobs, tax revenue and impedes growth and development, placing it near the bottom (46) state economies.

It is grossly unfair that the livestock operator has to wait for a delisting that may never occur. It is a violation of the 5th amendment and its "takings" clause to turn these uncontrolled predators on his stock without compensation, going to bed each night wondering how much he will lose through the night. John Paul Hubbard, a rancher, bordering Yellowstone Park estimates that since wolves have been introduced in '95, has lost in excess of $100,000 but cannot prove his losses. Montana Stock Growers tell us that they believe that contrary to what the wolf recovery people admit to, wolf depredation of livestock in Montana is 500% to 700% more, but again losses cannot be proven.

The wolf is a nocturnal hunter, the "blood on the paws" policy of reimbursement places the burden of proof on the livestock producer. The heavy burden of identifying the ACTUAL PREDATOR rests squarely on the shoulders of the livestock producer. Just think about it, a criminal breaks into your home and kills a loved one and you are obliged to prove their guilt to law enforcement. There are a lot of criminals doing life in prison after a weaker standard of evidence was presented at their trial. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 specifically forbids the act be used for economic or social reasons. The predator Program should be acknowledged for what it is; a biological means to undercut the Taylor Grazing act, destroy the ranching business, and confiscate land when those businesses fail. Sounds like a conspiracy theory? You be the judge.

Mike Phillips, the movie star handsome, media savvy biologist who introduced the wolf into Yellowstone Park in '95 spoke to a group of 600 people from 44 states and 24 countries in Duluth, MN. On February 24, 2000. He said the goal of wolf introduction was to drive 30,000 ranchers from public lands. His power point presentation was video taped by the University of Minnesota and the International Wolf Center, Ely, Minnesota reported 2/25/00 on Page A20 of the "Minnesota Star Tribune", and the May edition of "Wyoming Agricultural". Three of "Friends of The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd" paid $206 to attend. Bob Hanson a retired investment banker memorialized the remarks in affidavit form. Now, fully realizing the implication of making those remarks in a public forum Phillips vehemently denies he made them. Mike Phillips and former Yellowstone National Park Superintendent, Mike Findley now work for Ted Turners' Endangered Species Fund, an organization that vigorously promotes wolves. Turner is a self-described socialist and Americas' largest private landowner. The public has a right to know why former Yellowstone National Park Superintendent ignored Congress' instructions and the warnings given by Delphi 15. Only a Congressional investigation will be able to determine whether or not there was a Quid Pro Quo exchanging jobs for our wildlife, achieving a political end.

The American people apparently agreed with the early premise of wolf recovery into Yellowstone Park, and have learned to love wolves as featured on nature programs. They are entitled to know both sides of the story, not just the side that would be told by Aldo Leopold. Aldo Leopold, conservationist and bio-ethicist was born in 1887, the dawn of Theodore Roosevelt's conservation movement. At that time game herds, predators and natural resources were decimated to the point of crisis. Leopold wrote "you cannot love the game but hate the predators. You can regulate them, but not abolish them." Wolf recovery advocates aspire to be apostles of Leopold. L.David Mech, the wolf biologist, for the past thirty years is his best-known disciple. Mech wrote in his book "The Wolf", that, "unfortunately, there still exists in certain elements of human society an attitude that any animal (except man) that kills another is a murderer....to these people the wolf is a most undesirable creature", fostering an attitude of us versus them, he went on to write "these people cannot be changed." If the wolf is to survive the wolf haters must be out numbered. They must be out financed, and out voted." You're either a wolf hater or you're in complete agreement with their science, values, press releases, tactics and philosophy. This leaves those of us who live in wolf country following the revolution in quite a dilemma. How do you clean up the mess made by zealots who overreached and exceeded the instructions of Congress and the parameters set by their own PH.D.s, known as the Delphi 15.

What Mech forgot to mention is that since 1937, when the Pittman Robertson Act began collecting $6 billion from sportsmen, that Americas' gameherds are in the best shape ever. Despite this fact, wolf advocates who want to feed our wildlife to their wolves are convinced that they and only they should have the exclusive say in Leopolds' version of regulation. When wolf advocates control the regulatory process, agendas and values that are anti-ranching, anti-property rights, and anti- hunting can be implemented.

Anyone who questions them is an enemy to be marginalized, attacked and diminished as in extremists, alarmists, or just plain ignorant. It is this exclusion from the adaptive management process, this arbitrary, arrogant, self-righteousness that has polarized people in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, brought law abiding citizens to the verge of civil disobedience and laid the ground work for what is commonly known as the "war for the west". What is the root of all this distrust?
Drs. Taylor and Walters warned in July '89 in a report to YNP and the Dept. of Interior of the potential for major conflict arising from wolf introduction. They called for thoughtful interaction among scientists, wildlife managers (state and federal) and resources users (ranchers and hunters). They concluded that "to introduce wolves before adaptive management has reached maturity and consensus would be irresponsible". Needless to say these warnings and recommendations not only went unheeded, but anyone who was not in the wolf introduction camp; livestock interests, state legislatures, fish and game authorities, outside scientists with a different opinion, or hunting interests, were systematically excluded from the process and routinely lied to.

It is because of this premeditated exclusion that our wildlife in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have been decimated and our livestock industry which relies on the wildlife as a buffer between predators is at great risk due to uncontrolled predators, especially that prolific breeder, who has no natural predators, the wolf.

Why in this time of national peril that follows the tragedy of 9/11 are we not unified in our democratic republic when our survival depends on it? In my view it is for one reason, it is over a theory, the theory of Natural Regulation. Remember that once there was a theory that the earth was flat. The theory of Natural Regulation is just as invalid, just as flawed and just as widely accepted as the flat earth theory was in the dark ages. The theory of natural regulation is the philosophical cornerstone of the social engineers in the extreme green movement. Without the theory of natural regulation, wildlife and forest managers would be accountable to the American public and responsible for their actions or inactions. The deep ecology movement has decided that man's presence, participation in, and stewardship of nature is unnatural and all wild places must be off limits to human activity. It is absolutely essential to those who politicize science in order to make it fit agendas, such as the special interests of environmental groups or that of governmental agencies, i.e. USFWS and NPS, to exclusively control the definition of natural regulation. For example, if forest fires wipe out a third of Yellowstone Park with a holocaust fire like it did in 1988, or wolves kill half the great Northern Yellowstone elk herd, it was just nature doing its' thing. No one to blame, no government jobs lost, no public outcry, no conflicting values from various stakeholders, no outside scientific debate or peer review.

This past March '02, the National Academy of Science made a profound impact that resonates throughout the scientific world. In a report that was dedicated to the study of alleged overgrazing of Yellowstone National Park the esteemed body of scientists categorically refuted the long held belief, that environmental organizations used to justify wolf introduction, that YNP was in crisis from overgrazing.

The highest scientific voice in the land, that rescued water starved ranchers in Klamath, Oregon, stated that the policy adopted by park authorities in 1971 of "Natural Regulation" was invalid and should be abandoned. Imagine how the proponents of the U.N. Wildlands Project or those who believe the entire Yellowstone ecosystem should be turned into a national park must have reacted!

Take away the theory of natural regulations from the social engineers of the deep ecology movement and you have taken away the thing they most rely on, public sentiment that drives funding for their organizations, their lawyers, and political support for their anti-property right, anti-ranching, anti-hunting, anti-second amendment extreme vegan agenda.

(For the entire report visit the academies website at www.nationaacademies.org)
We can only hope that YNP Superintendent Lewis will hold to her word and "follow the committees' recommendations", especially on page 103 where scientists from NAS advise regarding wolf and game herd management.

"Resolving these conflicts will require all the vision, intellectual capacity, financial resources and goodwill that can be brought to bear on them" We certainly hope so, Ms. Lewis because as this piece is written, we are told that we must rely on wolves naturally regulating their own numbers!

Since the Endangered Species Act has become a vehicle that is undermining the republic and state sovereignty over natural resources, allowing urban majority to impose its' political will on the rural minority, contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, it must be rewritten with all the affected stakeholders; state wildlife authorities, ranchers, hunters and private property holders at the bargaining table. To this point they have been systematically excluded from the process by the tax-exempt environmental foundations, their legions of lawyers incentivized to file lawsuits, and career bureaucrats who politicize science.

Only when the adaptive management process is followed prior to the listing or introduction of wolves (or any other real or manufactured endangered species) into your state should you even entertain the concept, otherwise you will suffer the same thing we have experienced in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; an unmitigated, unmanageable debacle which has long term implications and unintended consequences associated with this experiment gone horribly wrong with no end in sight.


>
> >
>
>
>Copywritten & Submitted for Publication 6/01/02
>
>Robert T. Fanning, Jr.
>
>Chairman and Founder
>
>"Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc."
>
>P.O. Box 142
>
>Pray, Mt. 59065
>
>Phone: 406-333-4121
>
>Fax: 406-333-4144
>
>Email: rtfanning@worldnet.att.net

I think this article was posted on this board a few weeks ago and I didn't respond then but, to be frank, this whole article strikes me as just plain bad science and political hand-waving. The author is writing with the knowledge that their is little political sympathy for nearby ranchers and has thus changed his focus to native wildlife.

The author states, "We now have at least 720 wolves; and in 3 short years we could easily be at 1732". Really???? What does he suppose they will all be eating over the next three years if the elk, moose, and sheep herds are currently being so decimated? This is Simply a ridiculous article. I have absolutely NO problem with ranchers and come from a family that made its living via livestock, but I also have no problem with biodiversity in National Parks. If there is to be no hunting in Yellowstone Park (Note: I would be the first to sign up for a Yellowstone Elk or Bison Tag), I would just as soon have other predators regulating the herd numbers as has been done for centuries. Sure, there will be fewer elk to be seen by suburbanites in their motorhomes and fewer bison to toss the occasional vacationing accountant into a nearby tree but the ecosystem as a whole is and will be much healthier.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

I tried to read this whole article.
It is long and full-of it.
that is why it is so long!!
bullshit is always long, you learn that rather quickly in life.

Aye, 'tis a self-serving read, BUT the wolf issue is very real and frankly deserves better spokespeople. There is some fact swirled in amongst all the, uh, "stuff" written above.

There was a lengthy discussion only a month or so ago here concerning the matter. If you'll revisit the text, you'll notice there are NO supporting voices for the program from Montana, Idaho or Wyoming. Strange, huh? The wolves have meanwhile not observed park boundaries and have been introduced all over the region, park or no park.

Redial

They're not just in Yellowstone. The Glacier Park area is suffering under the same problem. There are no elk left on the North Fork of the Flathead River, and there are serious depredations in surrounding ranches, not to mention the impact on the low income here that depend on wild meat for thier years meat supply. The fish and game are unofficially telling people how to go about killing the wolves off. For this time of year, they are suggesting soaking a sponge in bacon fat, tie it into a ball, and then freeze. Cut the string, and drop these in wolf areas. They eat them, and it blocks thier system so they will starve.

If you want wolves, come and get them. To hell with the tourists having elk to see. We have to eat here. Last in the nation for income, first in taxation, and first to get shit on by the Green Nazis.

Hell yes waksupi!

Thanks,
"VERY" good reading

This is not just an issue of game herds in the Park itself . If you could stick a few wolves in Yellowstone park and keep them there , that would be great . But the wolves would never have stayed confined to within the park boundries , as anyone with half a wit would have known .

My opinion , if you want to hunt elk at semi-affordable levels , the time to do it is now. In ten to twenty years , it will be too late for anyone but millionares ....

[ 11-05-2002, 20:06: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

Granted, there's a bit of high-handed hyperbole in this article, but the core points are true. As a local in the Greater Yellowstone Eco Sytem I can verify the veracity of the article. This week I had another bout with wolves via my friend and rancher who lives just north of Yellowstone/Gardiner. My friend lost (so far) eighteen sheep to wolves this past week... nearly $10,000 worth. Defender's and Turner's bunch have all sorts of scheme's to keep wolves out of my frined's sheep. They've even put up a horn activated by a radio collar on one of the wolves and have strung streamer's all around the sheep pens... oh brother!

My friend has also has guided for thirty five years in the area north of the park. In this year's early rifle season they had 20 hunters in one month... they only took four bull elk! My friend's observation of the cow/calf ratio basically echoes those in the report above. The elk are becoming harder to find because there's so few of them and those that have survived are incredibly wary. The grizzly numbers are too high as well... they had to halt the evening hunt this year because of the danger from grizzlies as well as construct a solar/electrified fence around camp.

People like John The Greek (above) had better figure out we're in an all out eco-war soon... the wolves will be planted in his backyard next so he can have "bio diversity."

Brad,

Not sure I am reading your correctly but are you saying that 18 sheep were worth $10,000??
If so, are they pedigree sheep or something?

Greens want wolves re introduced into Scotland...they have already started with european beaver. They figure that the wolves will return to preying on their original prey ie Red deer. Course all us cynical stalkers know that in reality the local sheep are going to get a hammering although they will keep some of those Anoraks off the hill which has got to be a bonus!:-) :-)

Peter

18 sheep worth $10,000.....wow, I am in the wrong business!

Something is stuck in my throat... Ah! there it is! Drop a zero off that sheep figure, and I may be able to swallow it. That's way too high for meadow maggots!

$10,000 is the "expected income" from those sheep... misplaced "humor" aside, for a cattle rancher who's already stretched thin this is a very important source of income.

Some of you need to wake up. When you have very few elk in your hunting grounds it'll be a different story... and perhaps too late.

Nice try. You don't make 10 grand income from 18 sheep no matter how many times you cut 'em or shear 'em. Unless of course, Dubya has found a new way to assist farmers!

[ 11-05-2002, 22:53: Message edited by: Eagle Eye ]

Don't live in Montana or the Yellowstone region, so I'm not going to comment on that part. As far as the monetary value of the sheep goes, who cares if it $10,000 or $100? It's still 18 sheep in a WEEK. Now all you experienced sheep herders(farmers, whatever) Tell us how much it is really going to cost to replace those 18. Purchase price, delivery, tagging? What about all the sheep that the original sheep could have produced? Would you be willing to give up $100 a week just to have wolves around? Again, I have no experience with any of this, just kind of curious!!

Brad,

Your arguments are not falling on deaf ears with me . . . as I stated above I come from a family with old and deep roots in the Utah livestock industry. The above article remains, however, idiotic. Predator/prey interaction is a lot more complex than is being described here. Hell there are chaos theory based models of this interaction and our esteemed author is presenting it as though the wolves are just going to eat everything with the reduced prey numbers having no impact on their own population. Ridiculous.

I am a big fan of predator reintroduction because frankly, as a hunter, I want to hunt them too!! I also like being occasionally reminded that I, as a human, might not always be on the top of the food chain. About three years ago when I was in graduate school at the Univ. of Utah, some late night custodians saw a mountain lion roaming around the library. I loved it!!! I think these incidents are good for hunters and good for people in general. They are great reminders to soccer moms that hunting might be a good idea now and again to prevent their 18 year old co-ed daughter from being eaten by a big cat and her cubs that were later seen under the library steps AND they are great reminders to people that they are, in fact, part of nature and must occasionally be cautious just as any other clawless, toothless, and relatively defenseless prey animal should be. These subtle reminders are priceless and well worth losing some sheep whether I happen to own them or not. That said, do I think ranchers should be forced to bear the full burden of this cost . . . no.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

[ 11-06-2002, 02:54: Message edited by: JohnTheGreek ]

Right on, John.

John , whatever makes you think you will ever be allowed to legally hunt wolves in the lower 48 ?

Given the political situation , you got about a snowball's chance in hell of seeing that happen ..

As to the ten thousand ; several year's lamb crop , plus the original value if these were breeding ewes , could count up to ten thousand real easy .

sdgunslinger,

I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow but if you had told someone 30 years ago that they would someday be able to hunt Bison roaming outside of Yellowstone Park, they probably would have thought that was crazy talk too. Attitides change and situations evolve.

Regards,

JohnTheGreek

I live about 85 miles from Yellowstone Park near the Crazy Mountain range until last week there had been no known loss of livestock to wolves.last week there were two incidents on different ranches the first was a wolf carrying a lamb in its mouth .The second incident involved 3 wolves killing 5 sheep the rancher was reluctant to shoot them being concrned that he might be prosecuted and the wolves eventually left on their on before the goverment hunter arrived.As I have said before the genie is out of the bottle.w/regards

[ 11-06-2002, 22:25: Message edited by: gophershooter ]

Have an idea. I agree that the bison population is out of control in the park. We are constantly hassled when we schedule a hunt to thin numbers.

My idea is to let people "sponser" a buffulo back east. They can pay transportation expense, etc. Where would you put them? Golf courses. Plenty of feed, range, etc

What do you do when the bison are overpopulated in a few years and over-running you favorite Tee-hole?

Have an idea. I agree that the park has a bison problem. We get the flak every time we schedule a hunt.

Why not let the east coasters "sponser" a buffalo. They will pay all costs associated with the moval, removal, and all "climatizing expenses". Where do you put them back east?

Golf courses. They can pay all expeses to get them there and also, the upkeep, given a harse winter and such, but they would pay so they can view the experiance of having such a majestic animal in their backyard.

You say, What if in 2 years the habitat won't hold the numbers trying to live off the "greens?" and they are in danger of ,,,,,, overpopulation?

Introduce the wolfs. So what, if a few "rat dogs and cats" come missing from the poarch. Just think of the experiance of seeing stuff the Discovery Channel don't show.

Can I interest you in sponsoring a Grizz?

[ 11-07-2002, 12:32: Message edited by: Dave Durham ]

Gator,

As I said, there will definitely be domestic livestock that will get eaten. Not doubt about it. But the scarcity of natural prey WILL regulate predator populations to a level much lower than estimated by this author. Sure occassionally a mountain lion comes down into the foothills of Salt Lake City and cats in my own rather rustic neighborhood are common prey for coyotes BUT plenty of these animals starve when they cant find a deer fawn or elk calf.
Just out of curiosity . . . exactly how do you mean that lambs are "more fun". Is this a reference to odd Australian sexual habits in the bush?

Dave,

I really like your idea! It might get people to slow down on the local highways if there was a possibility of running headlong into a 2000 pound bovid.
Actually, I would love to see more free range bison reintroduction like in Utah's Henry Mountains or the Nisling River Drainage in the Yukon Territories. While there are still places desolate and wild enough to support such creatures, we should take measures to provide our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with the opportunity to see them! Same goes for large carnivores! It would be great if grizzlies were restored to their original range because the primary cause, in my opinion, of anti-hunting and anti-gun opinions is that people have literally no occassion to fear nature or gain from its proper utilization. Well, if we reintroduce large predators and big shaggy critters all over the place, I think the days of the anti-gun family would be numbered.

Paleohunter,

Glad you liked my post! As I said above, I think predator reintroduction is the sine qua non of wildlife management and our best hope at preserving wild places in the US.

Regards,

JohnTheGreek

John, I agree that the predator/prey issues are more complex than the "glossy" article above...

Yellowstone is overgrazed... no doubt about it. The Yellowstone elk herd is/was abnormally high... no doubt about that either. The wolves are reducing this herd which has (perhaps) been brought down to a more "natural" level... less prey animals which are harder to get "may" result in smaller wolf litter's, thus bringing "balance" to wolf no's... I understand all this. There is, however, a lot of "if's" in the above.

What I think many here including yourself seemingly don't understand is the "political" side of the wolf. If the wolves just stayed in the Park that'd be one thing... they don't. Our friend from Wilsall, MT speaks about wolf kills in that area. As a landowner in the Wilsall area I can tell you we've had wolves there (on our property) for at least three years. Part of the agneda is to get ranchers off public ground. I'm also quite convinced the wolf is seen as a "management tool" by the greenies to replace sport hunting. If you think it's going to be easy to de-list the wolf and allow regulated killing I believe you're mistaken. Meanwhile rancher's are paying a real economic price. We can argue about what the exact profit's are from eighteen sheep over their lifetime (I'm just reporting the high figure given to me... I originally said UP TO $10,000... perhaps that was in Canadian dollars!). The point remains it's a real loss. Defender's are the only one's who'll reimburse the rancher. However, to receive money from Defender's, a lot of "legal" documents must be signed... a lot of rancher's will not take money from them as they see Defender's as "anti ranch"... they're correct too.

Brad,

I definitely see where you are coming from but, as stated above, I do NOT think Ranchers should have to carry the cost of lost livestock. The reimbursement process should defintely be made easy and, at that point, if some rancher doesn't want to take the money that becomes his/her problem. Making the process difficult is only going to encourage ranchers to "SSS" (Shoot, shovel, and shut up) when it comes to the wolves.
As to wolf reintroduction being a tool for some who want ranchers off of public land or those who would like to replace sport hunting . . . while I can't speak to the former I cannot see how it in an effective tool for the latter. There are plenty of predators in Montana and other western states that coexist with sport hunting. If wolf reintroduction is being used as tool for this objective, the antis have chosen a poor tool for the job in my opinion.

Regards,

JohnTheGreek

John, the wolf is the BEST tool for eradicating the "huntable surplus" and establishing the "natural balance" and our experience is proving it every day. The wolf population expands by roughly a third annually and their killing habits have been the subject of long debate already.

Two big flaws are being quietly ignored - first is that the Eco-freaks are assuredly NEVER going to sit still for wolf hunting anymore than they do for national forest logging. Second, they are counting on prey populations to dictate predator populations. How does this happen? Simple. The wolves eat all the available food (including stock) until some members of their population STARVE and fewer pups are born. It has to get to that level before the wolves feel a negative impact.

I'm not willing to let it get to that point. Someone more well-read than myself might fine tune my hypothesis, but I believe I have the fundamentals right. Apart from the bio aspects, the political aspects are equally irritating. Don't get me started on tantrum-throwing hippies.

Redial

Redial, I think you said "more to the point" what I was trying to say. True, the wolf is not in the true "endangered" category/listing like the grizz here in MT. If you remember, however, we were told when the grizzly reached the 250 mark here in the Yellowstone area it'd be de-listed and opened to limited-draw hunting. Now the bears are over the 400 mark and not a peep has been heard until recently... de-listing may occur for both but it's going to be an uphill fight. Defender's of Wildlife is large and very powerfull in DC and at this point DC is calling all the shots in our state in regards to these issues.

It's time we Montanan's started putting pressure on our elected official's.

Brad

It's fairly cut and dry. The prowolf assholes want the ranchers gone. They've openly listed the ranchers they want gone. The problem is,when these ranchers quite,they place this land on the market. Either the land is bought up by the antis,or its subdivided and the habitat is totally lost.

The situation with the elk population,is normal. It's been documented thousands of times with predator/prey populations. Everything moves in cycles. The elk population was at all time highs. So wolves had plenty of prey and therefore their population has soared. Now that elk populations are down,the wolf populations will drop some. But they'll revert to unlimited food supplies in the form of livestock. Without livestock,you'd see wolf die off.

I wouldn't be suprised if the prey population gets so low,that the greeny assholes are out there trying to feed the wolves.

There are still more of us then there are antis,and if sportsman would just ban together and take some of the steps described in poisioning wolves and shooting them. There isn't a whole hell of alot that can be done. No law enforcement agency could keep up with the killing,especially if everyone did it.

I am suprised no one has blamed the loggers yet.