I just received this e-mail, and I thought it was a good read regarding wolf reintroduction.

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

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

umm . . . the slant on this article is just a bit extreme. the few wolves in yellowstone simply could not have reduced elk populations from 45,000 to 10,000 head in the 15 or so years they've been in the greater yellowstone ecosystem.

while there are some legitimate questions regarding predator reintroduction and landowner rights, articles like this just serve to make the anti-predator folks look like idiot extremists in much the same way that many environmentalists get painted.

i guess these days, there's no point in trying to convince people with sound research - rather its all about the "big lie" - paint the picture in the most extreme way possible and to try to sway the unwashed masses.

Interresting story, but: "biological weapon the wolf"? Careful, you're starting to sound like an extremist yourself!

WTF are you talking about? It conveys the feelings of the people who live there very well and the guy is far from an "idiot extremist."

Asking that the people who live there have some say in the process is extreme? Asking that those in charge be honest with us is idiotic?

Nowhere does he say, "reduced elk populations from 45,000 to 10,000 head." Maybe you should read it again.

Friends, I DO live here and by local standards, the article seems quite reserved. Maybe you've underestimated the scope of the problems - of which there are two big ones.

First is the wolves themselves, the cycles of predator and prey and fluctuating populations.

The second and more irritating is having wolves and greenie programs crammed down our throats by people we really don't like. We the residents seem to have very little say in our affairs. I believe this aspect is responsible for the "extremism", if there is any.

In one area locally where wolves have depleted the game populations and are often subsisting on domestic stock, there are so many Feds patrolling that you can't light a firecracker without uniformed folks investigating. Grating, it is.

For what it's worth,

Redial

Anyone who doubts that the primary motivations of wolf introduction was the removal of cattle and hunters from public land has not simply not spoken to one of the greenies involved.

The long and the short of the story is that de-listing this bugger (there are near 1,000 of them in the lower 48 now) is the only way to keep this from getting ugly. JMO, Dutch.

IN TEXAS WE DON'T HAVE WOLVES, WE HAVE OTHER CRITTERS LIKE THE GOLDEN CHEEKED WARBLER AND SUCH.MY GRANDAD RECIEVED SOME VERY GOOD ADVICE AND PASSED IT TO ME. SON" PRACTICE THE THREE S's"

SHOOT
SHOVEL
SHUT UP

Someone else has posted a solution in here somewhere.
The three S's - shoot, shovel and shutup.
Problem reduced.

Wolves aren't endangered, we have plenty of them up here. I say make them a big game animal like they are here, and start thinning the pack so to speak. I don't view the poster as an extremist, merely someone who wants what we should all want, freedom, freedom from a Government that can't control itself, or a pack of environmental extremists. Why should some Jackass from NYC, or Miami, or Los Angeles be able to tell a rancher in Montana what the hell he can or cannot do. Lets start letting some wolves and Grizzlies loose in central park, and a few other choice areas, then the touristas wouldn't have to drive 3000 miles to terrorize the rest of us, they could get eaten in their own backyard.

Now yer talkin,
How about trappin a couple dozen or so an putin some in central park, the hollywood hills, an some in the midwest
The MORONS that think that their a good thing should have some in their backyard too!
About three weeks ago one was found shot an hung on a ranchers fencepost here. Guess that says how they feel.

Hehehe

Glad it ain't just me. One argument I raise with the greenies when they're yammering about re-establishing native species that shuts 'em up pretty good is to ask what animal is on the California flag. I may be wrong (someone correct me if so) but as I understand it, the griz is native to the Los Angeles River basin. Let's reintroduce them there too! Why, it'd be just like what you want in Montana, no? So what if the PEOPLE there don't like it - the griz was there first. The people can move or adapt, just like you expect Montanans to do!

Whether I'm factually wrong or not, it shuts 'em up pretty quick.

Sorry for the rant. I'm going for some coffee.

Redial
Surly curmudgeon

Hopefully after the nov.5th election some headway can be made at delisting the wolf.

Over.40,

We do have wolves in the Midwest. Minnesota has the highest population of wolves in the lower 48 (2500). Wisconsin has over 300 and Michigan over 280. And yet, Wisconsin has an ever expanding deer population. I think your elk need to learn some survival skills. How is it possible that ecosystems with wolves existed thousands of years and still do to this day without the wolves killing off all their prey species. I to want them delisted but, mainly so I can hope for a hunting season.

Just wanted to point out to those that are calling the poster an extremist and such, the first line of the post was:

quote:

---

I just received this e-mail, and I thought it was a good read regarding wolf reintroduction.

---

And just like he posted, it is a good read from one side of a very emotional issue.

RIBS;Are you saying that wolves are not a problem in Minnesota?Elk are not the only victims of wolves in Montana.They are killing dogs and cats around Gardiner in alarming numbers as well as other livestock.A friend of mine manages Sieben Livestock Co. at Cascade MT one of the wolves from the Yellowstone area that was collared traveled 150 miles to Cascade and killed 9 sheep in one day and then stayed there until the goverment hunter got there and shot him.I think the genie is out of the bottle so to speak and this wolf problem will rapidly get out of control.I actually thought their initial release in Yellowstone was a good idea but with their rapid population growth and spread I see a nightmare in the near future. w/regards

gophershooter,

Currently wolves do not pose the threat to livestock in the midwest that they do in the west but, that is mainly because of the lack of that industry in proximity to the wolves. However, in Wisconsin wolves have been known to kill pets and last year killed approximately 15 bear dogs. I personally believe that the problems (livestock, domestic pet killings) will get worse if the wolves are left unchecked but, I do not see the threat to natural prey species (deer, elk).

Ribs

The guys at Elk, Inc., on Main St. Gardner Mt., a few years ago said they watched twenty seven wolves killing and hamstringing elk at one time on the flats in front of thier business.

The wolves have eliminated all elk in one major drainage here in N.W. Montana, and are working on several others.

Any ignorant SOB that wants wolves, come and get them. There are more than a few carcasses buried, and several electronic collars have taken long rides on tourists vehicles.

Shoot to kill, no quarter. We've had enough of this shit of out of staters telling us what is good for us. They don't have to live with the consequences of thier feel good Green Nazi actions, being it wolves, or forest management that burns our homes every year.

waksupi, very well said my friend I've been huntin elk in the same area for 18 years an since the wolves showed up their aren't nearly as many too be found And i ain't talkin about minn. pard, i ment a little south of there

Dutch there are close to 2500 in MN alone another 350 plus in Wis. about that in MI. And who knows how many more in other states.The time has come to delist and have hunting seasons to control them.

Gophershooter is 100% correct regarding the wolf on the Sieben Ranch. I know the Govt trapper who shot it.
I'm fairly current on the situation as I know many of the MT FWP and the USFWS predator control people who have to deal with these "problem" wolves.
Let me pass on a few facts; The wolf population in MT is growing three times faster than the Biologists expected. Mortality of pups is much lower than expected. The adaptability of the packs have proven to be better than expected.

Many of the collared pack members are electronically tracked and monitored closely so the Biologists are well aware of their travel patterns, pack size, pup mortality,etc.

They have also found out that the impact on local elk herds is "dramatic". They kill the newborn and young elk calves VERY easily. One doesn't have to be a rocket Scientist to figure out that high calf mortality means much lower populations in the long run.

Wolves are VERY smart and well organized when in hunting packs. They easily chase down deer,elk,moose,etc in a tag team style, until tired,then hamstring it and literally eat it alive.

I'm hoping for delisting in the future and some targets of opportunity shortly there after.

One of the things regarding the whole wolf re-introduction plan that was shoved down our throats that really burns me is the CO$T. It has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars and has created its own bureaucracy which we continue to pay for. We have children in this Country going to sleep each nigh undereducated and hungry,yet we spend millions on wolves.

Three S's here we come!

Frank Nowakowski
Cascade, MT

FN in MT

There is no question that wolves are the single greatest threat to hunters ranchers, game watchers and wildlife populations where they exist. And believe me, they are expanding so rapidly that it won't be long before those who up till now have not been affected, certainly will be. GUARANTEED! Wolves are an anti-hunting tool and to not recognize this is denial. Not the river in Egypt! We need delisting soon. Same thing on Grizzlies. While wolves do have there place in nature, they also need to be controlled. Period.

Not that anyone would really do this, but just suppose that a few breeding pairs of wolves were trapped, and did show up in rural New York state, for example.

The furor would be immense.

Then, the question is, why is the safety of the homes and farms in New York superior to our homes and farms here in the West?

Some folks in the federal government don't seem to realize that the West has been relatively civilized for a long time. We have flush toilets, TV, the internet, and farms and ranches. They want to "preserve" a version of the old West that they learned all about by watching TV and going to the movies. They seem to forget that a bunch of us actually live here.

Newly introduced predators usually are much more successful than biologists first predict. If they have ample prey, they flourish. Those female cougars(new genepool for Florida panther) from dry west Texas had no problem at all adapting to the Everglades in Florida even being released after several years in penned captivity while the lawsuits against release were dealt with. The only threat they faced was being road kill on a busy highway; no the gators weren't a problem.