http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/11/18/news/wyoming/42-elk.txt

Wolves threaten elk hunting
By The Associated Press
SUNDANCE - Elk hunting could suffer in northwest Wyoming if a dispute between the state and federal government over how to manage wolves becomes drawn out, the director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says.

Mike Jimenez, the federal wolf recovery leader for Wyoming, said if biologists did determine that wolves alone threaten the elk population, the state's only option now would be to move wolves away from elk herds.

Jimenez said that would be very ineffective.

He said elk provide about 90 percent of wolves' diet in the greater Yellowstone region.

No Shit.

I hunted the Bridger Teton area in Wyoming last year which is close to Yellowstone. Last year I got a tag for the area but it was CLOSED THIS YEAR. Because of too few elk.

Not only did Westerners have the wolves shoved down our throats despite our protests. Then add the insane amount of money spent to
REintroduce the damned things.

Now we will spent five times more money trying to put band-aids on a problem that should never have come up anyway. Only to ultimately figure out that the wolves eat too much game!

FN in MT

Please note the irrational fucking double speak by the quoted guv'ment type!
I mean is he saying the Wolves and the Elk are getting along just fine ("to the benefit of both"!) or is this "guv'ment type" saying "the Elk Hunting for humans is suffering" - OR NOT?
I do believe this green, excuse making "machine" has a future at the rmWf!
If indeed, no where else!
No, we as Hunters are simply screwed!
The collective group of green morons, who are actually foisting this horror on us (the incredible over-population of Wolves) and the damage they are (and have been!) doing to human Hunting opportunities, will just muddle along in "happy word heaven" making excuses, false promises and hiding their real intentions.
Meanwhile more and more human Hunting opportunities are going up in Wolf farts everyday!
Yeah I wonder if the rmWf could use some more dipshit greens in their heirarchy?
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Double speak, hiding real intentions and motives, false promises and the "bottomless bank accounts" of several green leaning agencies and private foundations is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Its gonna take a ton of money and years of court fighting to get us (Hunters) out of this green induced cluster fuck!
Frankly, I don't see the Hunters being smart enough or motivated enough to even begin the fight let alone fight it for the long term!
We be screwed!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Everytime this subject is brought up it drives me nuts... Here in Eastern Arizona and Western New Mexico they "re-introduced" the Mexican red wolves... What they hell were they thinkin ??? They were hunted and trapped out of existence for a reason... I can see it down the road when they figure out it was a bad idea it will be open season on wolf... I just hope it's not too late by then... Perhaps they had forgotten part of the reason why they had to "re-introduce" elk in Arizona....

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by Heat:
Perhaps they had forgotten part of the reason why they had to "re-introduce" elk in Arizona....

Ken....

Because they were hunted to extinction? What dies that have to do with the price of beans???

I was told several years ago that the solution to many problems has been the 3 S's.

Shut up has always been the hardest of those "s's" to follow. Also make sure that your tracks do not go anywhere near if you only follow 1st and 3rd.

Brent will tell you all the wolves are vegitarians. THey have little or no affect on elk, or big game for that matter. Never mind the WyG&F have finally came out and said wolves are having a very big affect on elk and other big game species. But what do they know? Not as much as his tree hugging G&F buddy and of course himself.

There will be no control or hunting because the USF&W intend to let the yellowstone packs spread and establish themselves in all of the west. Until then hunting will suffer, and of course the elk. Nothing like being ran to death, having your guts tore out, your calf tore from your womb, and partially eaten while still alive then the rest left to the birds because there is/was plenty more elk/ food, why eat rotting cold elk when you can leave it lay and then kill again!!!!! That's not my index finger, flatlander, tree stand doe slayer!

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Brent will tell you all the elk are vegitarians.

Indeed, I will. You want to argue that point? Didn't think so.

quote:

There will be no control or hunting because the USF&W intend to let the yellowstone packs spread and establish themselves in all of the west. Until then hunting will suffer, and of course the elk. Nothing like being ran to death, having your guts tore out, your calf tore from your womb

Oh whaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

and partially eaten while still alive then the rest left to the birds because there is/was plenty more elk/ food

Oh whaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! Again

quote:

That's not my index finger, flatlander, tree stand doe slayer!

Oooooh it hurts, it hurts! Such insult! Oh my....


kudu, relax. Ya got wolves. They ain't going away. Deal with it.

Brent

Everyone needs to listen carefully,when a douche bag from Iowa gives advice on wolves.

I live in N. central Idaho... we have 3 local packs in the area. We (my hunting partners and I) have taken 6 elk and 5 large whitetail bucks in the last 2 years. On many occassions we have heard wolves and seen their tracks where we hunt.

I guess our elk/deer didn't get the message to go lay down and die for the wolves??

I must agree with Brent, elk are typically vegetarians.......whitetailed deer on the other hand-----



IV

Hell post some pics of these elk and monster deer you've killed.

Sledder - if you were paying attention, you would have seen a number of elk and deer photos posted by IV.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by sledder:
Hell post some pics of these elk and monster deer you've killed.

uhhh.........okay.













Will these do?

IV

Now go to sunlight basin of Wyoming where the elk used to be plentiful and try the same thing. First you will have to draw a tag, which are going to be reduced by over 80% for next year. I know, I know, they staved to death because of the drought, even though WG&F employees will tell you, it is large concentrations of wolves, and not hunting that has reduced numbers to the point that cow calf ratios have dipped below 10 per 100 cows. I can't wait until they, (the wolves) become vergitarians like the flat lander with the flint lock says they are.

Time will tell the story, which it has, the liberal professor in iowa, will be wrong, and I think that is what he hates most! I bet if you spoke out in one of his classes against the wolf, you would flunk. If the truth were known he is a janitor not a teacher, because a true teacher would have an open mind with some common sense. He lacks both.

quote:

kudu, relax. Ya got wolves. They ain't going away. Deal with it.

We will, when the state wins the lawsuit, and with a very rapid and decimating means!

Then you will hear the waaa, waaaa, waaaaa, waaaa, from the flatlanders with all the answers!

quote:

I live in N. central Idaho... we have 3 local packs in the area. We (my hunting partners and I) have taken 6 elk and 5 large whitetail bucks in the last 2 years. On many occassions we have heard wolves and seen their tracks where we hunt.

Three packs of two wolves each! The whitetail are to smart to become prey with pregnant cow elk, and groups of easily hunted elk. Say what you want the whitetail is here to stay, a natural occuring,introduction! Long after your mulies are gone, It has happened in Nebraska and parts of Kansas. THe only thing that will slow it down is the deseases that the whitetail get. But then again we have CWD for the mulies!
Funny how you advocate extermination of one species that is more adaptable and aggressive,and naturally occuring, yet defend and support one that will wipe out your beloved mulies as well as elk as well as moose! Typical liberal biologist BS!

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Funny how you advocate extermination of one species that is more adaptable and aggressive,and naturally occuring, yet defend and support one that will wipe out your beloved mulies as well as elk as well as moose!

Well, I have never advocated the extirpation of the whitetail. They seem to adapt well, however I would prefer higher levels of harvest and different management techniques for the mule deer.

Having both species (along with various carnivores i.e cougars, wolves, coyotes and bears) is my absolute personal goal.

As for "liberal" biologist......you funny!!!

I vote quite conservatively (how politics got involved I do not know)-- I believe conservation is a tried and true Republican and conservative principal.

The idiots who are running the Republican party now I don't consider Republicans--- Republicans like Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt (whom I admire)would never dish out the lies and propaganda about large carnivores that the typical neo-conservative does today. Republicans like Reagan and Roosevelt were strong and intelligent enough to seek the TRUTH about an issue rather than just taking a party line. Both political parties today do nothing more than toe the party lines. Then, when it comes to managing wildlife, its easy for Joe Public to sit down in front of the TV or computer and rather than research something themselves they go to Fox (if they are Republican) or to CNN (if they re a Democrat) and see what the PAID talking heads are telling them to think.

It makes life easier I guess....



IV

Pathetic.

quote:

du, relax. Ya got wolves. They ain't going away. Deal with it.

Brent

Who let this moron in????

We have dumbass left wing liberals like that also... and we have to deal with their dumbassed eutopian ideas every day....

Is this a PETA invasion onto the web site, or is this punk just that naieve???

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:

quote:

Originally posted by sledder:
Hell post some pics of these elk and monster deer you've killed.

uhhh.........okay.













Will these do?

IV

Yes,those pics will do. You essentially have one good white tail deer taken. Considering whitetail deer make up very little of the wolves diet right now. Killing whitetails means very little in relationship to wolves.

However,your elk pics are pretty accurate. You've got a raghorn bull and two cows. Not exactly a stellar performance. Usually exactly what is left over when wolves impact an area. Cows and dink bulls. Elk currently make up 80% or more of the wolves diet. After the elk are gone,the wolves will move on to your whitetails more heavily and then livestock even more.

By the way,didn't you also already post those cow pics. Something about an august or early september depredation hunt on a private ranch. You guys used ultra mag chamberings if I remember correctly. At any rate not exactly an elk hunt representing the conditions found on wilderness elk hunts where wolves are actually present.



A prime example of the effects wolves are having on elk in wyoming,can be seen on highway 14-16 between yellowstone park and cody. The fish and game had to install digital reader boards along the highway,warning drivers of elk crossing the highway. The reason being,wolves are chasing the elk out of the hills and across the highway.

I personally witnessed the effects wolves are having on both bighorn sheep and elk,during a late october sheep hunt I was on this year.
Traditionally bighorn rams and ewe's will migrate to lower elevations in late october,along with elk. This year the majority of the sheep were still at around 10500 to 11000 feet,in typical avalanche chutes. I found elk elk right along with them. Mostly cows and no calves. These animals were holding to the slides with very little food,because its one of the few places wolves avoid. Fish and Game was also in the area doing some filming and documentation of the wolves effect on elk and sheep.

quote:

A prime example of the effects wolves are having on elk in wyoming,can be seen on highway 14-16 between yellowstone park and cody. The fish and game had to install digital reader boards along the highway,warning drivers of elk crossing the highway. The reason being,wolves are chasing the elk out of the hills and across the highway.

I personally witnessed the effects wolves are having on both bighorn sheep and elk,during a late october sheep hunt I was on this year.
Traditionally bighorn rams and ewe's will migrate to lower elevations in late october,along with elk. This year the majority of the sheep were still at around 10500 to 11000 feet,in typical avalanche chutes. I found elk elk right along with them. Mostly cows and no calves. These animals were holding to the slides with very little food,because its one of the few places wolves avoid. Fish and Game was also in the area doing some filming and documentation of the wolves effect on elk and sheep.

quote:

Who let this moron in????

We have dumbass left wing liberals like that also... and we have to deal with their dumbassed eutopian ideas every day....

Is this a PETA invasion onto the web site, or is this punk just that naieve???

The flintlock punk is just naieve!

I think the only way the wolf population will decrease will be if they start getting Parvo Virus. It would be a shame if parvo hit them. Since it stayes in the ground for 7 years. Sick adults that lived through it would take it back to den sites, and then the next litter would die, then the next. Kind of like the gift that keeps on giving.
Damn, now that would be a shame. I sure would hate to see that. Ron

The parvo issue has been kicked around alot. And evidently the feds feel that its a threat because they've taken steps towards vacinating wolves. Most often when they capture and release and during the original release in 1996. Its all part of keeping shit natural.

WOW!

I stand corrected....

My apologies for my ignorance in understanding predator/prey dynamics. I never realized that wolves took only large mature bull elk and left the "dink bulls and cows", nor did I realize they would eat a species into extirpation and then switch to another species.
That is fascinating stuff.
Where does one go to find such vast knowledge about wolves and their feeding habits?

IV

IV, you should know by now that you can learn everything there is to know about wildlife management right here! Didn't you know that lions and bears and wolves are trophy hunters? When they are not hunting, they sit around and tell stories about what great hunters they are, and the one with the biggest rack is the hero. Killing does/fawns/cows/calves is not the wolfly thing to do, and the ones who do are outcasts in the wolf society.

BTW, nice whitetail!

No, it is the fact that it just tears IV and brent apart to fathom the thought of them being wrong on this issue, they are wrong and it kills them. Has something to do with egos! And they are wrong, they totally disagree with the G&F dept. who are good managers, the G&F studies, reports, and suggestions that there are way to many wolves and no good will come from them,just infurates prowolf people. Yes we have to live with them, and hopefully there will be some form of liberal, very liberal,hunting of the wolf,.
if Wyoming wins the lawsuit, but I doubt it!


It is a fact that the wolf is affecting big game numbers in a negative way, but brent and IV decline to believe that. In thier estimation there are more elk now than ever before, therefore the wolf must not be a meat eater. THe decline of the elk populations in many areas of western Wyoming, has to be aliens then! It isn't the drought, USF&W crutch, it isn't over hunting, as success rates have gone down the last several years, and why else would the G&F be reducing tags for next year? ONe reason, wolves! No good has come, nor ever come, from this worthless, killing, eating machine!


And as for parvo, there were several cases last year that has killed some wolves. It was in the Casper paper. I am sure a $1 million dollar vacination program has already begun.

quote:

wolves are trophy hunters? When they are not hunting, they sit around and tell stories about what great hunters they are, and the one with the biggest rack is the hero. Killing does/fawns/cows/calves is not the wolfly thing to do, and the ones who do are outcasts in the wolf society

No they just kill to kill, kill pregnant cows, hunt the elk while they are calving, documented cases of them actually pulling calves out of cows and eating the calf and leaving the cow. And they kill without restriction, 24/7.

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
WOW!

I stand corrected....

My apologies for my ignorance in understanding predator/prey dynamics. I never realized that wolves took only large mature bull elk and left the "dink bulls and cows"...

That is fascinating stuff.

Where does one go to find such vast knowledge about wolves and their feeding habits?

IV

An article in our local paper stated the wolves were indeed targeting the large bulls in their weakened state after the breeding season.

I thought this was well known that bulls spend all their time breeding and fighting off other bulls and generaly enter winter in a weakened state. Could it be you skipped class that day?

A rancher in WY stated "Harassment by wolves has resulted in stress and weight loss to cattle". As a biologist, this may not mean much, but to cattlemen it means abortion in cows as they are stressed and eat less and overall less income as fewer and lighter weight cattle going to market.

To the common wolf loving, city slicker, tree hugger, it will mean higher food prices like hamburger/hotdogs.

To find such knowledge, just read the posts by the yellowstone biologists posted on this site and in the local papers in these Western states. It would help to take notes!

I hunt and am an "inholder" in the Frank Church in central Idaho. It's important to note that wolves weren't "reitroduced" into the Church, they were "introduced" into the Church, not having historically been in that area of Idaho. They've certainly found it to their liking though and the elk and mule deer populations are suffering greatly as a result. It is also worthy to note that it wasn't the "greens" and "wolfies" that were responsible for the elk herds that presently exist in the Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, California and Nevada. It was hunters and sportsmen that brought them back from virtually nothing over the last 100 years. So I believe that sportsmen have a right to be proprietary about those animals and the hunting opportunities they create. Without the sportsmen the elk wouldn't be there for the wolves to decimate. This is not to say that since the wolves are now there they should be eradicated in the wilderness, but they sure as hell need to be controlled and controlled soon and their numbers brought way, way down. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with the meat hunters that posted above, to each there own, and if you take game legally, what you shoot is your business, especially if it goes to feed the family, but on the wolf issue, get your heads out of your asses.

Here is a report printed in the Casper Star Tribune about the WY G&F commissioners meeting and some of the comments made on the subject..........


G&F chief: Wolves threaten hunting

By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune staff writer
SUNDANCE -- Wolves have a taste for elk in the greater Yellowstone region, which has worked out well for both species -- for the time being.

However, if there's no resolution to the state's dispute with the federal government over removing the animal from protection under the Endangered Species Act, the wolf's taste for elk may diminish hunting opportunities, according to Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Terry Cleveland.

"Let there be no doubt: If we don't get wolves delisted, the elk hunting opportunity in this state is going to decline," Cleveland said.

Cleveland discussed wolf issues at a Wyoming Game and Fish Commission meeting here Friday. He said under current federal protections, wildlife managers may kill wolves to protect livestock. But the state must receive special permission to kill wolves to manage elk numbers.

Cleveland said making the case that wolves are the primary reason for declining elk populations is difficult when there are so many other factors, such as drought and disease. Idaho recently tried to make that case to the federal government, but didn't succeed.

"The only way to protect elk is to get the wolves delisted and put the state in control," Cleveland said.

So far, biologists who study ungulate populations in the region have not determined that wolf predation alone threatens the elk population. If such a determination is made, however, the state's only existing option is to relocate wolves away from elk herds, which is a very ineffective management strategy, said Mike Jimenez, Wyoming wolf recovery project leader for the federal government.

Jimenez said elk make up about 90 percent of the wolf's diet in the greater Yellowstone region. The prolific predator has grown in numbers from 41 during reintroduction to the region in 1994 and 1995 to about 1,200 now, spanning northwest Wyoming and parts of Idaho and Montana.

The current annual 20 percent growth in wolf population is kept in check by a 20 percent kill rate related to livestock control, Jimenez said.

"When wolves kill livestock, we respond," Jimenez said.

Wyoming's plan for wolves once they're delisted calls for leaving the animals alone in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, while killing of wolves in nearby areas would be regulated by the state. Wolves elsewhere in Wyoming could essentially be shot on sight.

That plan has been rejected by the federal government and is the subject of continuing litigation.

Reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 682-3388 or at dustin.bleizeffer@casperstartribune.net.

Comments


Mr Green Jeans wrote on November 30, 2006 12:42 PM:
"Earthling - I packed a lunch. Wolves are not afraid of people in the least - if anything they are curious. I have had them shadow us while horn hunting - they stay out in front of you and you can hear them talking to each other. They generally stay out of sight but occasionally you'll see one. The reason they are having to shoot the bison (now follow this closely) is that wolves are NOT controlling them in the park - if they were, there wouldn't be any coming out of the park. The wolves have all spring, summer, and fall to knock the numbers down. Fact is they prefer other (easier) prey. And if wolves are controlling all the large ungulates, then why is there not enough for them to eat in the park? The wolves have been there for 10 years now. Hard questions - you may want to grab a quick snack in case you didn't pack a lunch."

earthling wrote on November 30, 2006 6:14 AM:
"Green Jeans asks a question that goes exactly to all of the points I've been making about wolves going near humans. Where Montana is shooting these buffalo is at the Gardner entrance - right at the start of 'Pardise Valley' on the Yellowstone River. This area is full of ranches and trophy homes, i.e. humans. Wolves don't go near there. There is, at the same time, an over abundance of buffalo there, pushed into the area because of the overgrazing that has been done by other ungulates throughout the Yellowstone watershed. Narrow minded Montana legislators have allowed this 'fish-in-a-barrel' shooting (it's hardly hunting because people shoot the winter-slowed buffalo from the road) because greedy ranchers have convinced them that buffalo could transmit brucellosis to their cattle. The problem with that is there never has been a single proven case of wild-to-domestic transmittion of that disease. So, people are shooting buffalo based on fear and no definitive science. The same thing is trying to be done with respect to wolves. Did that about do it for you Green Jeans? Or do you need some more? Next time, pack a lunch."

Faith Wicks wrote on November 30, 2006 5:13 AM:
"earthling, I also live in NW Wyoming, so I'm not an out of stater, that you seem to loathe so much. I don't hunt "trophy" animals, actually I prefer to hunt the females of any "big animal" species ('you can't eat horns' is my motto). I've noticed fewer and fewer of those animals as well. I hunt to feed my family, NOT to 'bag a big buck' as you like to put it and am finding it harder and harder to do so because the animals, both male AND female, are becoming more and more scarce. While I did like the fact, initially, that the government wanted to re-introduce the wolf to help stabilize the eco-system of the YNP, I find that they haven't managed the program very well. The wolves don't just take down the old and weak, but rather are very opportunistic hunters that will kill whatever they can, whenever they can and not just those species that are their natural prey. You really need to get out there and ask ranchers in your area how they feel about the wolves before you post so that you can get their opinions, maybe they might change you mind on a thing or two! Maybe if it was your property (cows, sheep, horses, etc.) that were being predated on, maybe your tune would change. "

Mel wrote on November 29, 2006 9:38 PM:
"Earthling, instead of pretending to know it all and instead of calling us so called ranchers and thinking that you see everything. Why don't you come spend sometime with some of us on our ranches and see that things aren't as simple as you make them out to be? Try being a rancher and trying to manage 500 head of cattle during calving season is trying enough without the wolves. As for hunting in Wyoming, do you realize that many of our hunters are FROM OUT OF STATE!! Most hunters from Wyoming don't use outfitters. Hunting brings in tourists as does Yellowstone. People come to Wyoming to see the wildlife and as the numbers go down so will tourism. Then where will your tree hugging buddies go on vacation??? "

randy wrote on November 29, 2006 7:54 PM:
"Bison are at record numbers only a few years after the big kill in Montana.That you tree huggers whinned and cried about was the end to park bison. A falicy! A wolf would much rather kill a calf elk, or attack a pregnant elk to eat the unborn calf, than make an attempt on a bison."

randy wrote on November 29, 2006 7:52 PM:
"earthling when was the last time you were in jellystone? I have gone the last three summers for three and four day trips. And I am yet to see a single elk in the park, you will see thousands of Bison, but few if any moose or elk. 10 years ago elk and moose were the norm along with bison. A close friend of mine is a wildlife photographer and has won several WG&F prizes with his photos. Many taken in the park of elk. For the last two years he is yet to photo a single elk. Now what is your excuse for the malaligned, misguided, attempt at the USF&W taking mother natures place. Other than to get jimenez or bangs aroused!"

MN wrote on November 29, 2006 7:44 PM:
"earthling does make some good humour reading. I didn't realize the Disney School had such gifted students. It almost sounds as if he belives what he writes."

New Idea wrote on November 29, 2006 6:53 PM:
" I have a GREAT IDEA!! Let's all go wolf hunting, no licenses are needed!!"

Tguide wrote on November 29, 2006 6:12 PM:
"Debate is healthy, Wyoming has nothing to be ashamed of nor should it be embarassed. As anyone can read here in these posts, the wolf issue is very touchy, sensitive, and very volatile at times. There are people adamantly opposed to the reintroduction, and there are those for it, one thing for sure, the line has been drawn in the sand and the verbal "war" is not over. We can only wait and see where the law suit is going, I for one think Wyoming will win it. Earthling you said "Wow, look at all these experts", maybe we aren't maybe we are, one thing you haven't done is give us any indication that you are! Absolutely no indication of any expertise what-so-ever."

Mr Green Jeans wrote on November 29, 2006 4:52 PM:
"Earthling - if wolves are controlling bison how come they have to shoot about 1000 a year? Just answer me that one question."

wyowoofman wrote on November 29, 2006 11:43 AM:
"We would all do well to understand and take it deep inside of us that earthling and his clueless tree hugger buddies (many of whom are the feds) are secretly on a campaign to achieve a "perfect" environmental utopia. In other words, no human inhabitants west of the Mississippi river! Only greenies and wolves, and bears, oh my!"

duh wrote on November 29, 2006 10:33 AM:
"Because people have no interest in 90% of the articles on this site - the other 10% they sometimes disagree passionately about."

earthling wrote on November 29, 2006 5:51 AM:
"Wow! Look at all these experts, most of whom claim to be ranchers (yeah, right), attack me for saying wolves are controling the populations in Yellowstone that were sorely overgrazing the Park for decades. Looks like all these people really missed the whole reason the wolf was reintroduced in the first place. I love the hardship and scary stories you're presenting here - maybe you can sell them as movie scripts in California, but the fact of the matter remains: WOLVES ARE CONTROLING THE WATERSHED AND IT IS BETTER NOW FOR IT. Wake up, get off your little ranchette, and take a look at the big picture - not your own narrowly selfish wants. Think of it this way: If you have to work harder at getting that trophy bull or buck - you'll be a better hunter. It's a win-win thing when the watershed is in balance."

Why must it be? wrote on November 28, 2006 9:38 PM:
"Why is it that 90% of the articles on this site have no comments, and the other 10% have a long, drawn out flame war? They really need to do a better job moderating the comments, or shut them off... this is just embarrassing for Wyoming. It should be interesting to see the reaction this post gets..."

Ouzel wrote on November 28, 2006 2:46 PM:
"I spend quite a bit of time on the west slope of the Tetons from Teton canyon to the Park and east toward Flagg ranch, Something I've noticed beside that these four legged vermin are oppourtunists and will eat whats avaialable and do sometimes kill for what looks like the shear sake of fun. That is in early fall no snow they seem to prey heavily on the elk, but after things snow up good and the elk head for winter range, they seem to shift towards the moose, one drainage in particular had at least one moose per week killed this past winter, the moose have wintered in this spot ever since ther were moose, so this particular instance is definitely not a "loss of habitat" as earthling and others so vehemently wave the banner. Elk/livestock depredation is one thing, but the moose population is going a tough time rebounding with these four legged eating machines running amok, and yes I didn't mention the amount of moose calves the grizz get because that is another discussion completely . "

voice of reason wrote on November 28, 2006 2:38 PM:
"Earthling should change his post name to "space-ling", because he is definitely in outer space somewhere. It is people like him who pushed for reintroduction, that is, those who had not a clue."

Marion wrote on November 28, 2006 2:00 PM:
"Oh, by the way earthling, I grew up on a sheep ranch in Wyoming, so I know a little about predators, even if we didn't have wolves. I took my boys to Disneyland over 30 years ago, no need to return. As for the rest of your information It was only a short while after they planted wolves in Yellowstone that they first went out and killed livestock, and they have never stopped. There was no shortage of elk then, now is a different story, they are eating themselves out of house and home. The elk in Yellowstone are decreased dramtically, the buffalo are doing fine."

Jeremy wrote on November 28, 2006 1:19 PM:
"Earthling: I manage livestock on a ranch that has had wolves den on it several times. Wolves do kill livestock even when there is abundant game (who wouldn't prefer beef?). Mostly this happens late in the summer/early fall when the pups are large and the pack's calorie demands skyrocket. We lost 6 large heifers to wolves on PRIVATE LANDS this year even with nearly constant human presence. Under the current laws, wolves have no reason to be afraid of humans because we cannot make them fear us until a depredation occurs. Even more significant than the 6 lost animals was the weight loss in the other 900, caused from stress. The cattle would stand in fence corners, walk roads and trails, and were off feed and water for more than a week until some wolves were killed and the pack moved off. They stayed away for 6 weeks before returning to kill more cattle, even with elk and deer on the ranch. As for wolves only killing the sick and the weak, come on. Wolves kill what they can get ahold of; sometimes that means it is the older, slower ones, but they do not have a 6th sense that says let's get the ones with the bad genetics. And a grad student that studied elk and wolves here for two winters documented one pack of wolves killing 7 elk in one night. Most of the elk were not consumed; so much for only killing what they can eat. And wolves are not always successful at killing. Four times this year, heifers were attacked and not killed. Nearly half of their hindquarters were eaten away, along with their udders, but these heifers were still walking and trying to get away when we found them. Talk about the smell of fear coming from an animal; it was an awful sight, and they had to be put down. I can send you pictures if you would like. Wolves are not efficient killers; they maim their prey and begin eating it while it is still alive. How do you think that makes people feel that make their living raising and caring for these animals? It is unfortunate that you write as if you know everything with respect to wolves when you obviously have little first hand knowledge or experience. Take a dose of reality and humility. "

rlpowell wrote on November 28, 2006 1:07 PM:
"Earthling you say you are from northwest wyoming, have you been to yellowstone lately? I go there quite frequintly to take pictures where are all the elk? Some of youre comments are redicoulus, maybe we can go to the irma and you can voice youre oppinion there, ha ha"

crazy horse wrote on November 28, 2006 11:10 AM:
"Earthing - have you visited the FWS website yet? Guess not. "They 'wolves' won't touch domestics if there is plenty of their natural food supply. Never will" WRONG! Suppose we accept that bit of misinformation - looks like we must be running out of elk because wolves are eating livestock like they are the new lunch special. Suppose a wolf is locked in a big pen with three healthy adult animals - a sheep, a cow, and an elk cow - guess which one is going to be eaten first Earthling - I can guarantee you it's not going to be the elk. I wouldn't want to be the sheep."

ironhorse wrote on November 28, 2006 10:46 AM:
"A local licensed trapper has reported wolves(unknown number)in the Ocean Lake area(my home)west of Riverton. With consderable arial activity over this area the last couple of weeks, along with an eagerly awaited hunt season in progress, one has to wonder how the 'control measures' are going... Earthling, when did you have the opportunity to TELL the wolves that their natural food supply did not include ANY livestock...young, healthy or otherwise? Do you think they give a rats a--? What you said is true...if you shouldn't be here then you shouldn't be here. Does that hold true for the wolves as well? I don't live in the mountains or anywhere near what is supposed to be the "recovery zone" yet I will have to deal with the exploding wolf population as my sheep and my guard dogs take the brunt of the upcoming wolf attacks from the wolves that shouldn't be here. Natural food source? If it's available? It will be readily available here in the valley as the wolves adjust their diet to include newborn lambs(about the size of a good rabbit)and calves(nothing better than fresh veal with afterbirth)with the occassional pocket gopher or cottontail for dessert. I would say your "If it is available" is a pretty big "IF" They genetic code of the Canadian wolf and the wolves of old Wyoming(before there weren't any)will vary somewhat. I would wager a good healthy ewe that DNA testing now, of any random Yellowstone/Canadian wolf would not test pure when compared to a Canadian wolf. Would that not make the "reintroduction" illegal? And before I get slammed for not being "from" Wyoming...I am. I was born in Gillette. Any thoughts?"

Marion wrote on November 28, 2006 10:30 AM:
"Poor earthling, you really try hard to prove the earth is square don't you? First of all, the wolves are not way off in the mountains, some are denning on ranch property. One den on a Meteetsee area ranch is just yards from the house. FWS refused to proactively move them prior to calving, despite the family having a very young child. They took down cows within sight of the house. Second it is very easy for a wolf to carry off a 10-20 pound lamb from a corral a few hundred yards from the house. Do a little studying on something except the DOW propaganda. By the way I live in a very old small house outside of a small town."

Tguide wrote on November 28, 2006 10:00 AM:
"By the way earthling, "real guides and outfitters" are very concerned about the wolf issue, attend the Outfitters and Guides convention in Riverton in December and just ask one, but, I hope your reflexes are good because you better be ducking. And like I said, they won't be tolerated around anywhere else in the state except the NW, and I assure you..YOU WON'T DECIDE THAT either. Even the feds admit to the fact that this is the only real "suitable" habitat in this State. Ohooo..When you are on one of your "part-time" walk-abouts, pay attention to what a water-shed really is. Sounds like you need educated in that arena also."

Mr Green Jeans wrote on November 28, 2006 9:41 AM:
"Earthling must not own a TV or he could watch the Montana bison hunt on KULR8 this year (140 tags or somewhere in there). That is in addition to many other bison slaughtered by the Park Service after they test positive for brucellosis (849 were shipped to slaughter last year). Here's another link you should really take the time to visit so you won't look like such a flaming idiot - "http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/11/16/news/state/20-bison.txt" - facts about the BISON HUNT. And I have news for you on the livestock kills - once the crows, magpies, eagles, grizzlies, and coyotes find a kill the evidence is COMPLETELY gone within a matter of hours, NOT days. My guess is that you've never even seen a wolf, much less a wolf kill. And just in case you are not aware, here's another little tidbit of knowledge - a lot of grazing leases ARE way back in the mountains. So if you didn't see a wolf when driving through Yellowstone you need to get out of the car once in a great while and take a short walk Earthling. Don't need to go to Yellowstone - just go 20 minutes out of Cody to Rattlesnake Mountain. You may not see a wolf, but Ray Charles could find a wolf track up there because they are EVERYWHERE. Odds are you'll hear one at the very least. May not see a lot of elk though. Yes - wolves are controlling the bison in Yellowstone - that is why about 1000 were shot or slaughtered last year. Real guides and outfitters formed a chapter of Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife in Park County (which later expanded to include the entire Big Horn Basin) to fight the federal government on the wolf issue. That chapter donated $5,000 to help pay legal costs of fighting the federal government on wolf management. Litigation is still ongoing. Very convenient for you to make up your own set of "facts" while you ignore all evidence (scientific or otherwise). Might want to start with the Billings Gazette link Earthing - it is not "scientific evidence", but simply a newspaper story. Yes - you may claim that "they made it all up" - it's just a widespread conspiracy to make it appear that wolves are not controlling bison in the park. Earth to earthing - come in earthling..."

Tguide wrote on November 28, 2006 9:05 AM:
"My Gosh folks!!! Look up in the sky!...its a bird! NO its a plane!! No its super earthling!!!! I doubt you'd make pimple on a real hunters behind! Even if the entire state is in the recovery zone they won't be allowed to be on Casper Mountain or anywhere else where they are causing a problem. Go have some more tofu and greens...and by the way...have a nice day!"

W-Y-O wrote on November 28, 2006 8:28 AM:
"I think one of the main threats to hunitng in WY is the G&F. Their poor management and continuouse rate hikes are threatening the traditions this state holds. Employees of the Department are getting more and more and the administration seems to not know how to balance budgets without passing the hikes to the people of WY. It is sad that the numbers of native hunters will decrease if nothing is done to preserve the sport. Additionally, if WY would wake up and stop playing cat and mouse with the feds we would have a management program for wolves like MT and ID. "

earthling wrote on November 28, 2006 5:46 AM:
"M: 'Not being able to prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen'? Huh? What didn't happen? That the livestock is missing? Ummm, maybe rustlers got it. Maybe it wandered off. And yeah, wolves will pass up a bull to take down a cow or calf - elk, or doe and fawn - deer. They won't touch domestics if there is plenty of their natural food supply. Never will. Heck, they even control the buffalo in Yellowstone. Did you know that? Wolves are controling the populations in Yellowstone that were sorely overgrazing the Park for decades. Gee, just what kind or scientific evidence would satisfy you on that score?"

earthling wrote on November 28, 2006 5:36 AM:
"Hey Marion: Here's something else enviros don't care about - when some dope gets gored by a buffalo in Yellowstone because he was trying to get up close for that perfect picture. Sounds like you're one of those crybabies in Colorado (formerly from California) who built trophy homes way up in the mountains and then went crying to the government for compensation when a wildfire burned you out. When you go into the mountains, you have to assume some of the risk. If you shouldn't be there, then you shouldn't be there. And wolves sure don't grab lambs and calves and pack them way back into the mountains so the rancher can't prove a depredation. Sounds more like rustlers or your version of a fairy tale. And ranchers don't run out to the sale barn to replace stolen livestock everytime they discover the loss. After reading what you write, I know you're not from this elevation, probably not from this timezone either."

earthling wrote on November 28, 2006 5:20 AM:
"Tguide: I don't see anything in the statute (glad you finally looked it up, by the way) talking about a 'recovery zone'. Eventually wolves will be state wide and 15 packs will have to be supported. It doesn't matter where those packs are either - you won't decide that. And it looks like you're one of those lazy hunters who are afraid of the competition wolves now present. But don't be scared. You can still go on over to that game farm in Idaho to get you a trophy bull. How come real guides and outfitters aren't as concerned about wolf re-introduction as a few of you are?"

Mr Green Jeans wrote on November 27, 2006 4:46 PM:
"Wolves threaten hunting - imagine that. Who would have ever thought this might have been a possibility at the time of "reintroduction"? Marion has a good point - won't matter if it's a ranch kid."

Tguide wrote on November 27, 2006 1:54 PM:
"earthling: Title 23 chapter 1 article 1, 23-1-101, definition of wildlife,(a)(viii)(B). The term "non essential population" is a term set by the feds, not the state. The State fully plans on maintaining 15 packs in the state, 7 outside the park, but, they fully intend for those 7 packs to be maintained in the wolf recovery zone. A pack of wolves in the snowies or Laramie peak just simply will not work with the large amounts of deeded land and the "definite" likelyhood of wolf/livestock problems which will happen. Hince, one of the reasons for the dual classification set by the state. "Predatory" would give the state the right to manage these "odd" numbers where it would be necessary to remove them without a big fight. The G&F fully believes that the recovery zone is more than capable of handling those 7 packs. Many of us may not like it, and most of us don't. But, whether we like it or not, the wolves are here to stay. We just need to continue to stand up and fight the feds and let them know that we think they are dishonest in how they attempt to regulate species and "us". In my opinion, if "the people" want endangered species running around, then they should have to pay for their management, not the states and the people thereof! Three hundred and five plus wolves are to many. And yes, I like to hunt as well as thousands of others in this state, and an excess number of wolves will greatly impact our elk herds and our chances of success! And it doesn't take a "biologist" or PhD in Wildlife Management to figure this out! And.....there is a whole lot more to "watershed" management than having wolves running around in it earthling!"

Marion wrote on November 27, 2006 1:04 PM:
"There is an article on Newwest.com about the wolf situation and the suggestion that greens will never allow hunting of wolves, and if they are not hunted, we will soon have 10,000 of them. Some are saying that is far fetched, but between the Rockies wolves and the Great Lakes there are already more than half that. On top of that there are thousands more just north of the border. Ranchers are not even fully compensated for their expenses in confirmed kills, they are likely to live a hundred miles or more from the nearest sale barn to buy more, and it may take several trips to even come close. Then of course there are young animals which are packed off by wolves and no compensation for them. Confirmation is much harder to get than you'd believe.The enviros won't care about a kid being injured or eaten as long as it is a ranch kid. A skier might be different."

M wrote on November 27, 2006 9:07 AM:
"I would like earthling to point to the scientific evidence that wolves would prefer to kill a large bull with deadly hooves and antlers as opposed to a nice soft cow or lamb. They won't walk past the stock to take down their "natural prey." Also, ranchers have clearly demonstrated that they are in fact not compensated if they can't prove loss to a wolf kill. Not being able to prove it doesn't mean it did't happen. Bottom line, wolves were naturally moving back into the more southern areas from Canada. Reintroduction ignored expert advice from legitimate researchers to push an agenda."

earthling wrote on November 27, 2006 5:44 AM:
"To Marion: Ranchers are more than fairly compensated for every single documented wolf depredation - everyone knows that. And as far as 'viewing experience' goes, everytime I've gone through Yellowstone (and it's the same with nearly everyone else who does) I haven't seen a single wolf. I seen more bears than ever before. So you're way off there too. And nobody is playing god, they're just trying to set right what God started and man messed up. Hunters against wolves are just mad because now they have some real competition that is better at hunting and now the human has to work harder. "

crazy horse wrote on November 26, 2006 8:25 PM:
"Folks - earthling possibly can't or won't accept facts. Maybe wolves poop in the watershed - elk poop that is (could be sheep, beef, or coon hound also) - likely good fertilizer for willows and there is nothing browsing on them these days. The unfortunate fact is that if WY wins the federal lawsuit we are stuck with "15 packs" in and around Yellowstone, then it gets down to how many wolves are in a pack, who counts them, and who has a job flying around in a helicopter shooting them after they kill someone's livestock. Filbert had a good point - after wolves eat someone's little kid or a skier stuff might change."

earthling wrote on November 26, 2006 12:24 PM:
"Tguide: Maybe you should read the statute which IS STATE LAW. You can find it on the Legislative Services Office's website. 'So...just incase those reading YOUR post get "essential" confused.'"

WYskippy wrote on November 26, 2006 8:33 AM:
"Wolves threaten hunting? No kidding! Two years ago one entire area in the Yellowstone basin by count had no moose calves in it at all. There were all killed by wolves. Great move, Clinton and Freudenthal who both allowed this to happen. No the Gov is working against what he made happen in the first place, there was a reason these wolves were eradicated decades ago."

Tguide wrote on November 26, 2006 7:30 AM:
"earthling: You mean the proposed states wolf management plan, not "state law". As you must know the plan has not been accepted yet. And it is not 15 packs "statewide" its a total of 15 packs within the "recovery zone", the state does not recognize the entire state as the recovery zone, this is obviously part of the ongoing litigation. So...just incase those reading your post get "essential" confused. This was set by the FWS reintroduction plan and not by the State. And 305 wolves are certainly not "essential" to the watershed, maybe 100, but not 305."

Marion wrote on November 26, 2006 4:27 AM:
"Earthling, what on earth do you mean wolves are completely essential to the watershed? The "watershed" did just fine before the left coast decided to "improve" Yellowstone and their viewing experience by hauling in wolves from another country. All the wolves have accomplished is to destroy a lot of other wildlife, cost a lot of money most of which is paid by ranchers for wolf food. And it strokes the egos of those twisted souls that feel they just have to control the lives and property of other people by playing God."

crazy horse wrote on November 25, 2006 7:46 PM:
"And thank you Marion!"

crazy horse wrote on November 25, 2006 7:44 PM:
"Thank you Tguide."

earthling wrote on November 25, 2006 7:00 PM:
"Hey Casper, it's called 'Title 23 of the Wyoming State Statutes', not 'section',-just so you know. And it's a good thing you brought it up because even if the wolf is listed as a trophy animal, state law says that seven viable packs will be allowed to exist OUTSIDE of Yellowstone. Up to fifteen statewide. Where the problem comes in is with the classification of wolves as a "non-essential population". They're completely essential to the watershed. And the data being collected by USFWS will show them as 'essential population' because of their contributions to the health of the watershed. The good thing is that they'll be classified 'endangered' a lot longer than the grizz and bald eagle are. And that's good for the watershed and GOOD FOR WYOMING!"

Tguide wrote on November 25, 2006 12:45 PM:
"earthling: You state-"It's amazing so many people think they are smarter than the federal government", seems to me you think they walk on water, so why don't you follow crazyhorses' advise and read the FWS report on their website. They must know what they are talking about! Right?"

mercurial wrote on November 25, 2006 12:22 PM:
"earthling there is no such thing as a "perfect balance of nature". Nature deals in excesses and right now there is an excess of wolves."

crazy horse wrote on November 25, 2006 9:15 AM:
"Well - obviously you are earthing. Yes - maybe the information on the FWS website is simply fiction that they made up. It's just a conspiracy to make it APPEAR they are shooting wolves and stacking them like cordwood. No wolves are killing any livestock anywhere. While you have your head in the sand be sure to check for buried treasure..."

Marion wrote on November 25, 2006 5:45 AM:
"It gets a little old having some of you insisting you want things back the way it was before the white man came. In the first place we cannot know the status of much of anything from that time, there are no written records except ancient rock writings. We do know from the diaries and comments of the early explorers that wolves were almost never seen and howls were heard only a few times. Certainly there was nothing at all like the numbers of wolves presently in Yellowstone. Two wolves were documented as they were loading the wolves in Canada to bring down. That would have been close to what occurred prior to the white man, an occasional wolf showing up. Historic numbers of an occasional wolf was not what the designers of present day Yellowstone had in mind, they wanted a lot of wolves! We now have them and the rest is history. We in Wyoming and the other states are left to dela with the situation."

Tguide wrote on November 24, 2006 3:40 PM:
"Earthling instead of making me upset, you actually made me laugh. 32 years cleaning porta-potties and picking up garbage, can anyone think of a more boring and stinky job? But....would have been a whole lot less stressful!"

Casper wrote on November 24, 2006 2:20 PM:
"Section 23 of the Wyoming State statutes has the solution for the wolf invasion. However that solution will not take place until the feds decide that this Canadian wolf is no longer an endangered species. The answer is simple; take the non-native Canadian wolf off the endangered species list. After that if the wolf stays in Yellowstone and surrounding area they can live in peace and harmony. Outside that area they become trophy animals."

Tguide wrote on November 24, 2006 2:03 PM:
"Crazy Horse, it's obvious that "outer orbit" is not interested in the cold hard facts. It's funny that earthling doesn't even want to read the facts from the very agency that gathered the info. and was responsible for the introduction. By the way, eathling, my 32 years was being a range and wildlife ecologist. What's your credentials? Are you even from this State? "

earthling wrote on November 24, 2006 8:29 AM:
"What facts crazy horse? Just because it's on a website some where, or you say it, doesn't make it so. Shooting wolves 'like a house on fire' and 'stacking them up like cord wood'? Geez, who's out in fantasy lala land? And by the way, I'm from Northwest Wyoming where we have respect for the entire watershed. I spend my spare time 'in the field' not playing some destruction intensive video game like your descriptions of the WS shooting wolves suggests you do. But that's what you guys who live in Iowa do. So it's cool. Just stay there."

earthling wrote on November 24, 2006 7:57 AM:
"Tguide: you didn't even come close to answering my questions. I guess your '32 years out IN THE FIELD' kinda shows maybe you weren't so good at playing biologist for two of them. Pretty hard to play the expert here when your job probably was emptying trash cans and cleaning port-a-lets. And any dead animals that the wolves kill and don't completely consume becomes a food source for other carnivores in the forest like eagles, magpies and coyotes. Wildlife numbers in this country had a perfect balance before white man got here and the wolf project is seeking to re-establish that. It's amazing to see so many people who think they're smarter than the Federal Government."

Ouzel wrote on November 24, 2006 5:00 AM:
""stay the path Wyoming, don't cave into the feds like Idaho and Montana and have control over the wolves only on paper and where management practices are to allow uncontrolled spread of these vermin. Feds wanted them in the park, keep'em there! issues like these should be on the ballot of states where they are of a concern, not decided in LA or NY or worse yet Washington DC" "

Ouzel wrote on November 24, 2006 4:50 AM:
""stay the path Wyoming", don't cave into the feds like Idaho and Montana and have control over the wolves only on paper and where management practices are to allow uncontrolled spread of these vermin. Feds wanted them in the park, then keep'em there! Issues like these should be on the ballot of states where they are of a concern, not decided in LA or NY or worse yet Washington DC" "

Tguide wrote on November 23, 2006 9:43 PM:
"Well said Filbert!"

Tguide wrote on November 23, 2006 9:39 PM:
"Well said "Great Uncle Bill". You hit the nail right on the head! I'm interested in what "outer orbit" will have to say! Probably say some crap about "yellowstone is everyone's land" or some bull like that. They just shoved the wolf thing right down our throats, and didn't care what we thought. The state and the people of the state will now be hung with the bill on wolf management and control. For even myself, and at first, I wasn't so opposed to the initial 10 packs and 100 or so wolves, but, the feds just outright lied to us and went ahead and did what they wanted to do without our input. The 10 packs went to 15 and now there are 32 or so packs and 305+ wolves. Even I used to say "Hello Mr. John Doe, I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help you". What a crock."

Filbert wrote on November 23, 2006 9:18 PM:
"What states rights? The implication is, and always was, that the Feds can and will shove a species down a state's throat. Here is how it works. The Feds declare the wolf an endangered species. As such, it can only be managed by THEM. Then they introduce this species into Wyoming by way of the Park. I say it in this way because wolves can not be contained. It is simply a matter of time before there are wolves in all 23 counties of Wyoming....far away from Yellowstone where they were introduced. So then we have wolves between Laramie and Cheyenne and even then we can not manage them because they are an endangered species, which only the Feds can manage. Neat huh? But, you say, if we start loosing a lot of livestock to wolves we can shoot them. Oh no, we can not, because only the Feds can shoot an endangered species. The Feds are telling us they will drop the endangered status if we agree to live by their rules. But the State of Wyoming is saying, hey while the wolves are still an endangered species you (the Feds) are responsible for any damage they do. When we start managing them we become responsible for the damage, and we really don't like your rules. So, Feds, if you want off the responsiblity hook, you have to negotiate with us about those rules. It's either that or you remain responsible for damages in perpetuity. When it comes to indroducing the wolves into Yellowstone, I think the Feds did the right thing for all the wrong reasons, and did it in the most heavy-handed way possible - a way guaranteed to make enemies of the people of this great state. What I think should happen is that Wyoming should capture breeding pairs of wolves and release them in downtown Washington D.C. several times a year. This is a case where tit for tat should work. If they can release wolves into our back yard without consultation and without the proper management controls in place, we should be able to return the favor."

Tguide wrote on November 23, 2006 8:06 PM:
"Yea earthling I will!! the months are during winter, 5-6 months long. It was the F&W's average. Like I said in another post, they even admitted they had no Idea about the other months due to the lack of snow to track. Do you actually think they stopped killing elk because the service couldn't track them anymore to "verify" actual take? Like I said it's there in black and white for you to read, if your not to lazy?"

Tguide wrote on November 23, 2006 12:07 PM:
"Earthling, no where in the USF&WS do they even hint that the wolves are only killing the weak and sick. Wolves are very smart, efficient, pack hunting predators, they will kill any large ungulate which the pack can bring down. Go look for yourself on their own website, they have the data to back up the fact that the wolves are killing "all" kinds of prey, healthy, sick, weak, etc.. You are really out in orbit earthling, and you have no concept of predator/prey relationships. Your just spitting out the crap you here around the card table or extreme enviro gossip. If you do profess any biology training, then it's purely "PAPER" biology. I think the G&F people have a handle on the real picture. And you know what?? So do the Feds. They just can't speak out off the record for fear of reprecussions from the agency. I KNOW, I was a federal employee for 32 years, and two of it was with the USF&W as a biologist. IN THE FIELD, not at the desk. My biology was real science. What are your credentials??"

Great Uncle Bill wrote on November 23, 2006 11:05 AM:
"The wolf issue is what happens when the Federal government gets involved in State issues. (Go figure!) Everyone in Wyoming, whether they were for or against the reintroduction of wolves, should have "just said no" to Federal involvement (coercion). Yellowstone might be a "National Park" but it's located in little ol', mistaken for a foreign country, Wyoming. I guess the federales showed us! Played the ends toward the middle. Worthy of a CIA, FBI or IRS conspiracy. All involved ought to be ashamed of how shallow we were and how we completely missed the larger issue... State's rights. Wyoming should have opened the coffers and fought the government to the Supreme Court. Not on wolf reintroduction, but on a State's right to say no to the Federal government. No matter what that Government thinks it "owns". The simplest plan has been and will always be to fence in Yellowstone Park and see if the Federal government can manage/control it's "unique ecosystem". We could call it the "Jurrasic Park Solution". ("Do not get out of the vehicle!") That would put to rest the concerns of: hunters, environmentalists, wolf-lovers, wolf-haters, ranchers, gun-lovers, gun-haters, the under-informed, the over-informed, the quick, the dead and anyone else I've failed to mention. Only so many of each animal can live there. All others will be trapped for relocation, hunted or how about let's just see what happens when they're left to their on devices. (Possible fish bowl effect?) The comments that have already been posted are dealing with semantics. When the government forces a State to do anything without the majority approval of the residents of that State all 50 States and all Americans lose."

crazy horse wrote on November 23, 2006 9:02 AM:
"Refuse to accept the facts if you must earthling . Doesn't change them - while you are out in la la land somewhere wolves are killing livestock as this is being written, which will initiate a "control" action. There is game around - but the wolves are just as happy dining on ewes, horses, mules, or dogs. Makes no difference to a wolf. Apparently you are having some difficulty comprehending the material from the FWS website - "Lethal control is ongoing - 3 wolves were removed - killed an adult male and will continue to attempt to remove the rest of the pack - Control is ongoing to remove the remaining pack members - removed an adult gray male wolf"??? Control = remove = shot to death. So while you are bunnied up in your fantasy land, WS is out shooting wolves like a house on fire. You should really turn off your TV and get up out of the armchair sometime and go take a hike in NW WY. Your misinformation identifies you as the true flatlander."

jt wrote on November 22, 2006 9:37 PM:
"Environmentalists and animal lovers claim that wolves kill the old and infirm wildlife. They claim that they kill only what they need for survival. D. F. Oliveria, opinion writer-Spokene.net, states that in southwestern Idaho, wolf attacks have killed almost 40 University of Idaho sheep. Oddly, the predators have ignored the ewes and lambs to slaughter rams weighting 250 to 300 pounds ... and then leave the meat to rot. Studies on the research of Professor Warren Ballard in Alaska documented that wolves will kill about 30 moose per year (per wolf). If you calculate biomass it will probably take 60 or more elk to provide the same amount of biomass. It is also interesting to note that Ballard found no evidence of sickness or debility among any moose killed by wolves. So, given the research to date, if wolves are not aggressively controlled, and soon, devastation of Montana elk, deer, sheep, moose and goat populations is a reasonable projection. While these animals may not be wiped out to the last animal, uncontrolled wolves will certainly not leave enough for human hunters to be allowed to hunt. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is fully aware of numerous documented attacks on humans by wolves in North America, yet they refuse to write a rebuttal to fictitious statements that wolves are not attacking humans. Instead it is posted on their children's website that wolves don't attack humans! And the list goes on.... http://www.chinookobserver.info/main.asp?SectionID=12&S...ID=16461&TM=12265.66"

earthling wrote on November 22, 2006 7:28 PM:
"'Stacking them like cord wood ... ' Fold your tent. You've been disgraced by your ownself as a flatlander. Stay in Iowa."

Randy Allen wrote on November 22, 2006 5:58 PM:
"The WYG&F have documented cases where wolves attacked, maimed, and ate very little of the 20 some elk they attacked on the Gros Ventre. It has been proved time and again, wolves kill for fun. Training of their young or whatever. They kill and waste. No good has come from the illegal reintroduction of the canadian grey wolf and never will. You can have lots of game or lots of preditors, but never lots of both."

Filbert wrote on November 22, 2006 5:44 PM:
"One of the first big surprises the NPS got was when its own research revealed that the number of wolf breeding pairs was about three times as high as the NPS had predicted. That could only spell one thing...that wolf numbers were exploding and that wolves would not, or rather could not, be contained in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The GYE is a term of which the NPS is very fond. It implies a grouping of interests as in my land (Department of Interior), your land (Department of Agriculture) and everone else's land too. The cool thing for the NPS is that, controling the park as they do, they get to dictate terms to all the 'other' interested parties. So far, that is exactly the way it has worked."

crazy horse wrote on November 22, 2006 5:09 PM:
"Earthling - a lot of these happen outside of the park. If you read the article CAREFULLY you will see that it states that elk comprise 90% of the diet of wolves in the greater Yellowstone area. Really - do youself a favor and go to the FWS website - it will clarify a lot of things for you. I didn't say anything about wolves killing for fun - just that they are following their instinct to EAT. And they are killing them and stacking them up like cordwood as a result. This article is not about poaching or trophy hunting - it is about wolves decimating the northern elk herd. Have a happy thanksgiving folks."

Filbert wrote on November 22, 2006 4:48 PM:
"This whole wolf issue arises from the fact that the NPS finally woke (it only took a hundred years) to a basic contradiction in its management of the park. On one hand its mandate is to MANAGE the park (manage being an active verb). On the other hand, it has always banned hunting (a case of not doing something). Given its druthers, the NPS will always choose to do nothing. ... But in the case of elk numbers, which were sky rocketing in the the 1970's that would be a case of NOT MANAGING, a violation of the mandate. The solution the NPS finally arrived at, after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on research (not well publicized) that was supposed to show wolves' presesence in and around the park...and having that research prove just the opposite, was to 'reintroduce' wolves into Yellowstone. It was the perfect bureaucratic solution...this way the NPS could manage elk numbers and still do nothing! And it was funny in an ironic sort of way. You see for nearly 50 years, in its information it handed out to tourists, the NPS had steadfastly maintained that there were wolves in Yellowstone. Oh no, say it

quote:

Originally posted by EB:
It was hunters and sportsmen that brought them ( wildlife) back from virtually nothing over the last 100 years. So I believe that sportsmen have a right to be proprietary about those animals and the hunting opportunities they create.

Well Said!
Sportsmen continue to contribute money to this day.

Damn. That post is the longest one I've seen in 6 years!

Sounds like a lot of pups survived this year making it possible for more breakaway packs to form.

http://www.yellowstone-natl-park.com/wolfmap.htm

Did anyone see the program on TV about the young man 21years old ? I think ? was stalked and killed by 2 wolves in Canada at a lake just 1/2 mile from a small mining town near the lake ? Was Just on a few days ago , National Geographic ? Not Sure ? I have Satelite Hard to keep up with all those channels !

I am fast losing whatever sympathy I may have had for the wolf introductions. Maybe the better answer to overgrazing by ungulates would have been to re-introduce archery hunting in national parks.

quote:

rather than research something themselves they go to Fox (if they are Republican) or to CNN (if they re a Democrat) and see what the PAID talking heads are telling them to think

This is so true. What's more we've been brainwashed to believe the old "hunting as a wildlife management tool" retoric. While hunting CAN BE a wildlife management tool it is not it's sole benefit. Not even its greatest benefit! If we don't soon wake up and begin promoting the ecconomic and recreational benefits of huting, things such as this wolf debate will negate the "need" for hunting to control wildlife. What then will be the defense when the bunny huggers call for an end?

More lies, coyotes kill 28% more sheep, duh! There has to be 30% more coyotes than wolves so they should kill more, more eagles to.

The G&F, which brent thinks are lying, have always gave higher counts than bangs or heemenez! I tend to believe the WYG&F any day or time over the USF&W.


I really don't want to see them delisted, let the enviro's and government pay for the problem!
152 killed, that is a great start!


Record number of wolves killed this year
By MIKE STARK


BILLINGS (LEE) -- Wolves caught eating what they shouldn't are paying a higher price these days.

A record number has been killed this year in the northern Rocky Mountains for going after cows, sheep, dogs and other domestic animals.

So far, 152 wolves have been shot by government agents or private landowners, about 50 more than last year and an eight-fold increase from five years ago.

In Wyoming, one-quarter of all wolves living outside Yellowstone's protective boundary were killed after reports of attacks on livestock.

Wolf managers are taking a more aggressive tack with problem wolves mostly because the population in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho has soared beyond expectation in recent years.

''We've got a recovered population so we're pretty hard on them if they get into trouble,'' said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

There are at least 1,264 wolves in the three states, according to new figures provided Monday.

That's roughly a 20 percent increase over 2005, which is on top of years of steady growth since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 and 1996.

''I'm surprised we ever got over 1,000 wolves but in the long term I think it will be less,'' Bangs said. ''I think we're on the top edge of that bubble and it's going to go down.''

All three states saw the number of wolves grow in 2006 over the previous year. Montana's total increased from 256 to 300, Wyoming's grew from 252 to about 314 and Idaho's grew from 512 to around 650.

In Montana, the increased numbers reflect more wolves in the northwest part of the state and better reporting on the ground in recent years, said Carolyn Sime, who leads the wolf program for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

''I feel like the minimum estimates are more realistic now than anything in the last 10 years,'' she said.

Much of the best wolf habitat, especially in Yellowstone, is filling up. Eventually, as the good spots disappear and it becomes harder to find ample food, the population will dip back down, Bangs said.

So far this year, wolves in the three states have killed 170 cows, 344 sheep, eight dogs, a horse, a mule and two llamas, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The kills - greater for sheep and cattle than any other year - are almost certainly higher than the numbers show because confirming wolf kills can be difficult.

But more wolves have been killed in turn.

The vast majority were shot by agents with federal Wildlife Services. A small percentage were killed by private landowners in Montana and Idaho, which were recently given more flexibility in pursuing wolves that were trying to kill livestock.

Typically, 6 to 7 percent of the wolf population has been culled by ''lethal control,'' as some call it. This year, the rate is around 12 percent overall and 25 percent in Wyoming outside Yellowstone.

''It's still just a small percentage of wolves involved but when a pack gets into chronic trouble, we get rid of 'em,'' Bangs said.

A University of Calgary study published earlier this year said killing problem wolves is only a temporary solution to livestock attacks. Once the offender is removed, another eventually moves in to take its place.

''Wolves are being killed as a corrective, punitive measure - not a preventative one,'' Marco Musiani, one of the study's authors, said earlier this year.

A better approach, he said, is to look at when and where depredations occur and take steps like changing grazing patterns, and using guard dogs, fencing, wolf repellants and other measures.

Though wolves grab the attention, their impact on domestic animals is far exceeded by other predators.

Coyotes kill 28 times more sheep and lambs than wolves, according to figures compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Foxes, dogs, bears and even eagles also rank higher, and that's not to mention weather, diseases and lambing complications.

For losses that are confirmed kills by wolves and grizzly bears, the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife pays the value of the animals lost.

''I think we're looking at a little above average year,'' said Suzanne Stone, who works out of the group's Idaho office.

The group has paid out $153,930 for wolf kills so far this year, more than $50,000 over 2005.

Oh and for IV and brent, the vegitarian wolves are mentioned in the FWS 2005 agency report, where during two time periods of that year, the wolves kill of elk, consisted of 43% and 55% bull elk. WOnder why you can't find a big bull any more???? And why some late seasons and areas are being closed?????