Pay special attention to the words of "wisdom" in the last two paragraphs of the New York Times article!

New York Times

HELENA, Mont., Feb. 5 — The news for the wolf last week was the opposite of a cloud with a silver lining. At first glance, it seems like a win for conservation that wolves are now successful enough that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service proposed taking wolves in Idaho and Montana off the endangered species list.

The plan to remove wolves in Idaho from the endangered species list prompted residents to rally outside the State Capitol.

But the price of success may be high. In Idaho, the governor is ready to have hunters reduce the wolf population in the state from 650 to 100, the minimum that will keep the animal off the endangered species list. “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself,†Gov. C. L. Otter said, according to The Associated Press.

Of all the protected and endangered species in the United States, none has provoked stronger feelings than the wolf, reviled or revered, depending on the person. And few have been as visible a success. The proposed delisting, as it is called, comes because the population of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is surging.

It is growing in other states as well, including Wyoming. But wolves in that state will continue to have federal protections under the Endangered Species Act, federal officials say, because the state’s policies are not adequate to keep the wolf from becoming endangered again.

“The service is committed to ensuring that wolves thrive in the northern Rocky Mountains after they are delisted, and will continue to work with the states to ensure this successful recovery is maintained,†said H. Dale Hall, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The public has 60 days to comment after the proposal is published, probably sometime next week.

At the same time, the service announced that the delisting process for wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota was complete. At 4,000 total, the wolf population in those states is considered fully recovered, and the comment period is finished.

Many people in the northern Rockies would like to see large numbers of wolves killed as soon as possible, which is why Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group that played a pivotal role in the wolf’s return, opposes the delisting.

“We don’t support the delisting at this time,†said Jamie Clark, executive vice president of the group. “Hunting is fine. But you have to be judicious about where you hunt and when you hunt. Wyoming and Idaho say they are going to kill wolves, but there’s no mention of population science or monitoring. Its politics, not science.†She said the group was not ruling out a lawsuit to keep the delisting from going forward.

Ms. Clark is also critical of the lack of protection afforded wolves that find their way from the Rockies to Oregon, Washington and Utah, where there are very few of them.

On the other hand, some officials say that federal protection has resulted in far too many wolves and that delisting is needed to cull the excess.

Hunters and state officials throughout the region say the animals are decimating elk herds, and ranchers say they kill too many livestock.

Wyoming officials also adamantly oppose some federally imposed protections and refuse to adopt them, which is why animals there aren’t proposed for delisting. While wolves in the wilderness areas around Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks are managed as trophy animals, the state wants wolves outside those areas to be classified as predators, which means that they could be shot without any state regulation.

State officials feel that their hands are tied when it come to controlling wolves that prey on wildlife. “Our elk population is showing decline, and we’re concerned about those declines,†said Terry Cleveland, director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Wolves also chase large herds of elk that are fed on feed grounds operated by the state. Because the elk are fed in large numbers, they have high levels of a disease called brucellosis. If wolves scatter them, Mr. Cleveland said, they end up in cattle herds and may spread the disease.

Some people have been spooked by close encounters with wolves. In Idaho, Forest Service employees called for a helicopter rescue when they were surrounded by howling wolves, and a man collecting elk horns said he was stalked by wolves. But there are plenty of people in the West who love the re-established populations. People flock to Yellowstone to watch wolves hunt and play in the wild, and one economist estimates that the wolf watchers leave behind $35 million annually.

If the wolf is delisted, state wildlife agencies will assume full responsibility. They already have most of the management responsibility in Montana and Idaho for the endangered wolf.

The Fish and Wildlife Service does not walk away. If wolf numbers fall below the limits set in the recovery goal, the service could undertake an emergency relisting and take back authority from the states.

Nonetheless, there may well be a large-scale reduction of wolves in store. Governor Otter said wolf kills of elk were hurting Idaho’s hunting economy.

A bill has been introduced in the Idaho Legislature to allow hunters to take wolves for a $26.50 license fee. That is well within a state’s prerogative, federal officials say, as long as minimum numbers are maintained. “Any wolves above that, it’s up to the state to manage,†said Ed Bangs, coordinator for the wolf recovery project at the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wolves that get into trouble killing livestock, and there are plenty, are hunted now by federal agents, usually from airplanes. Last year, 12 percent of the total population was killed. A hunting season is seen as a way to control wolves after delisting in all states.

There have been declines in elk and responses from angry hunters near Yellowstone as well. Before wolves were reintroduced in January 1995, there were 19,000 elk in the park’s northern herd. Those numbers have declined by about 6 percent a year. In December, biologists counted 6,738 elk in that herd during an annual survey.

“There are a few areas where elk are impacted,†said Mr. Bangs, who has led the reintroduction effort since it began. “But so far it’s been in the not-a-big-impact realm in most places.â€

Part of the perception, he said, is that elk may be harder to hunt. “Research shows that when they are stalked by wolves, elk behave more like wild animals than livestock. They are more alert and spook easier and so hunting is more difficult.†End!


This blather further proves my contention that the intentions of the "greens" with the transplantation of Canadian Wolves to Wyoming, Montana and Idaho is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to diminish human sport Hunting opportunities!
That one herd has suffered a net LOSS of over 13,000 Elk since the Wolves from Canada were brought to that area 11 years ago!
Thousands of special Elk tags have not been issued in that one area alone in the last couple of years! Normally in that area of Montana over 2,000 special Elk tags were issued each year. As of this year NONE will be issued! And during the last several years around 150 were issued each year instead of the formerly 2,000 to 2,300 per year!
Wolves can hunt - humans can't!?!?
I see.
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

seems like something one would expect from a liberal rag. the sad part is those folks in the city (and everywhere around the country due to its selective circulation) will believe his opinions are factual. just another example of the left trying to downgrade hunting and those who participate.

If you don't know me by now ...

I will make a prediction that if they ever get to hunt them in Idaho they will never get their numbers down to 100.
Once they are shot at they will be very dificult to hunt and kill.
Right after antelope season ended I turned off the highway and saw what I took for a coyote.I stopped the truck and reached for my .280 which I thought was under a tarp.I turned around and looked to see if the coyote was still there,not only was it still there it had stopped and turned broadside abought 100yds away.Then I got a good look at him and realized it was black and brown wolf.I finally remembered I had left my rifle in the cow boss,s truck the week before.T the wolf finally turned and walked off.w/regards

Something a little more plausable . . .
_______________________________________

WOLVES AND HUNTING

By T. R. Mader, Research Director
Abundant Wildlife Society of North America


I'm convinced, based on several years of wolf research, hunters will bear the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of location.

There is no language written in any wolf recovery plan to protect the hunter's privilege to hunt. Wolves are well known to cause wild game population declines which are so drastic hunting is either eliminated or severely curtailed. And there is no provision for recovery of wild game populations for the purposes of hunting. It simply will not be allowed.

Example: A few years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed the state should take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt wolves were impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a short trapping season on the wolf.

The environmentalists sued and won. The USFWS could not give wolf management back to Minnesota in spite of a desire to do so.

The problem with wolf recovery is that most people, especially hunters, have not looked "beyond press releases and into the heart of the wolf issue."

It must be stated clearly that the wolf is the best tool for shutting down hunting. The anti-hunters know this. Most hunters don't. Thus, wolf recovery is not opposed by the people who will be impacted most.

In order to understand the impacts wolves have on hunting, let's look at some biological factors of the wolf and compare some hunting facts.

The wolf is an efficient predator of wild game and domestic livestock. Due to its ability as a predator, the wolf was removed from areas of the U.S. where man settled. There is no such thing as peaceful coexistence between man and wolf - one has to give to the other since both prey/hunt the same wildlife/ungulate populations.

Did the removal of the wolf cause it to become endangered? No, there are 40,000 to 60,000 wolves on the North American continent. The animal is doing quite well. During the years of wolf control, the wolf's territory was eliminated throughout most of the lower 48 states. That factor is the reason the wolf is on the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

A wolf requires five to ten pounds of meat per day for survival, thus the wolf requires a considerable amount of meat in one year - nearly a ton of meat per year per wolf. A wolf is capable of consuming great quantities of meat, up to one fifth of its body weight, at one time. Thus, a wolf does not have to kill each day to survive.

Wolves hunt year around - 365 days a year. Wolf predation is not limited to two weeks, one month or whatever a hunting season length may be, it is year around.

Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available and convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, "Wolves kill only the weak, sick and old." Worse yet, hunters have believed it.

It is true, wolves do kill old animals, but so do hunters. Those are the big bulls or bucks prized by many who hunt. In fact, biological studies have shown wolves kill older male animals more than any other adult member of a wild game population.

Regarding sick animals, there are not many sick wild animals today. Hunters and trappers are directly responsible for healthy wild game herds today.

In the cyclic "balance of nature" of years past (no hunting by man), ungulate populations would thrive until they overgrazed their habitat and starved. This malnutrition made ungulate populations susceptible to disease. Consequently, disease was more common. Lewis and Clark wrote of such herds. (The other major factor contributing to the decline in wildlife populations was predation.)

Hunting controls this cycle so that herds are kept at proper levels for habitat, preventing malnutrition and susceptibility to disease. Hunting dollars went to habitat improvement and biological studies which, in turn, help maintain healthier herds of ungulates.

Even agriculture plays a part in the dispersal of salt and other minerals to domestic livestock. Wild animals access these nutrients as well. Thus, disease is not as rampant as when nature regulates it naturally. It is also interesting to note that where disease is a problem today, such as Yellowstone National Park, hunting is not allowed.

Trapping completes the cycle of game management by controlling the predator. The predator is to wildlife what weeds are to a garden. They must be controlled or they will take over. Additionally, predators are disease carriers. Some people are aware predators carry rabies since reports of rabid animals or some person being bitten by a rabid animal are often in the news, but few realize predators also carry other deadly diseases, i.e. raccoons carry a deadly fowl cholera. And finally, trapping benefits the predator by keeping their numbers in check. This keeps the population healthy. If predators do overpopulate, they become more susceptible to rabies, mange and other diseases.

Wolves do not eat sick animals unless forced to do so. We have found this true in many cases.

Example: A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) found a moose with brain worm. Brain worm completely destroys an animal's instinctive and natural behavior. This moose had wandered out on a frozen lake in winter and was slowly starving to death. Wolves came by, checked the moose out and went their way. Tracks in the snow verified it. They did not kill it even though it would have been extremely easy to do so.

Wolves do kill the weak. Weak animals are not sick animals, they are simply the "less strong" of the herd. Wolves target these animals - the young and pregnant - due to their inability to escape. This is an important factor in limiting wildlife population numbers. Wolves prey directly on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations.

While doing research in British Colombia, a wolf biologist from the British Colombia Ministry of Environment took the time to show me how wolves could impact hunting so severely. Here's his example.

In this particular example he used a number of 300 females in a herd of elk. In his region, wolf predation is often 90% on the young (100% mortality rates due to predation are common in the north). If 300 females gave birth in an area of wolves, the approximate loss would be about 270 young calves killed during the summer months, leaving 30 yearlings to serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a herd is about 10%. So the 30 yearlings would balance out the regular mortality rate of the female segment of the herd.

But overall there is a decline in the elk herd due to the fact that the 30 yearlings are usually sexually split in half (15 females and 15 males), thus the reproductive segment of the herd declines although the numbers appear to balance out. Without some form of wolf control, the rate of decline will increase within a few years.

There were approximately 100 males in this herd of elk. Figuring the regular mortality rate and compensating with the surviving young leaves 5 animals (males only) that could be harvested by man.

Now if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be approximately 60 - 70% successful reproduction (calves making it to yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male (100 animals). After figuring a 10% mortality rate, 90 older animals could be harvested without impact to the overall herd numbers. In fact, the herd would increase due to additional numbers of the reproductive segment (females) of the herd.

Now you have some insight of the impacts wolves can have on hunting.

In spite of the negative publicity generated by the anti-hunting, anti-trapping movements, hunting and trapping are some of the best wildlife management tools.

Hunters' harvest can be limited through numbers of licenses issued, bag limits, length of seasons, and specification of sex of the animal harvested. Thus, only the surplus of an ungulate population is generally hunted. If the need arises that an ungulate population needs reduction, it is easily accomplished by allowing an "any sex" hunt and increasing license numbers. Additionally, hunters will pay for the opportunity to hunt which in turn pays for wildlife management.

Wolves do none of the above. They simply kill to survive and for the sake of killing. Studies have shown that ungulate populations cannot withstand hunting by man and uncontrolled predation by wolves for any length of time. One has to give to the other. In this day and age, the wolf will be the winner, the hunter the loser.

A point which should be stressed is "wolves kill for the sake of killing," not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only what they need to eat. That simply isn't true.

Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn't eat? In the same area, the same winter and only a couple of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten.

The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 2 wolves was 36.

Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34 caribou calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the Wrangell Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams crossing a snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the wolves. Only six were partially eaten by the wolves.

Dr. Charles E. Kay, PH.D. has lectured on the impacts of wolf recovery. To illustrate the impacts of wolves on hunting, he did a comparison of moose populations in British Colombia versus Sweden and Finland. Both areas have a comparable amount of moose habitat.

Dr. Kay stated, "During the 1980s in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals and was increasing. While in British Colombia, it was 240,000 animals and decreasing.

"In British Colombia where they have a population of 240,000 animals and after a calving season they killed only 12,000 animals which is a 5% off take. In Sweden and Finland, on the other hand, they have 400,000 moose and guess how many they killed in the fall? They killed 240,000 moose in the fall which is a 57% off take rate.

"Now the two main differences, I don't want to imply that there's not vegetation difference and other things, but the two main differences is that British Colombia has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves, all sorts of bears, grizzly bears and black bears which are also important predators, and mountain lions. Sweden and Finland have none of the above."

Veteran wolf biologist, John Gunson, Alberta Ministry of Environment, summed it up when he said, "Really, there isn't any room for harvest by man if you have a healthy wolf population."

Hunters, please understand the impacts of wolf recovery on hunting and the role wolf recovery plays in the anti-hunters' agenda. Natural predation, especially wolf predation, can replace your privilege to hunt.

Brent;Go smoke that in your pipe with whatever else you smoke.w/regards

Some very good points were presented in the long diatribe above.....most (more than 50%) was junk.

I think the author of that paper had been "smoking something" that has made him a little paranoid......

IV

"The Abundant Wildlife Society of North America" ????

What a QWACK! T.R. Mader is the "Research Director?" (Let me guess its his garage that this is based out of-- he must be the janitor also?

Believing or publishing anything from that site (search Google) is about as plausible as believing firearm crime data from Handgun Inc. or Sarah Brady....

Is that the best defense we (as hunters) have to offer???

You must be kidding......

while i agree with managing wolves (and doing so severely), that second article is a bit suspect. there is no mention of bears in the predation of young, no environmental concerns in reproduction, weather and whatnot...

so, yeah, i think bringing a foreign species in to replace a species that was not missed is a bad idea, but surely there a better article to draw "real" info from.

Brent,

Can you tell this guy to put down the crack pipe and give you a call? The MN DNR have nothing on you.

quote:

Example: A few years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed the state should take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt wolves were impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a short trapping season on the wolf.

Idaho Vandal: I tend to agree with not only the gist of what the "Research Director" writes but as to the numbers and percentages - and "philosophical and political" points he makes, I, absolutely concur!

Gophershooter: You have hit upon EXACTLY what the greens are counting on!
Any animal "saved" from a human Hunter is an animal saved - EVEN if eaten by Wolves!
The transplantation of the Canadian Wolves to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming was nothing more and nothing less than an effort to curtail (ruin if possible!) human sport Hunting!
No one knows more than the greens that aside from aerial Hunting Wolves are next to IMPOSSIBLE to control population wise!

MuskegMan: Thank you very much for posting the article by T. R. Mader! I very much appreciate it and in fact AM stunned by his clarity and some of his revelations! I am going to look the Abundant Wildlife Society of North America up and see if they need support etc.

Thanks for nothing rmWf!

Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Originally posted by MuskegMan:
In the same area, the same winter and only a couple of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten.

The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 2 wolves was 36.

Anyone care to look up the various fines/consequences for a human hunter concerning wanton waste? Wolves don't have any laws stopping them (just the opposite in fact). That leaves it up to humans to control the wolves. I really don't have any use for wolves in my woods.

If you go the Society for Abundant wildlife In North America they have pictures of the sheep taken by Alaska FW&P.Most just had their throats tore out 2 were partially eaten the rest untouched.It is a really interesting site, Which debunks a lot of the greenies B.S.w/regards

Yes , that is an awesome site!!

But wait a minute.... Brent (who hasn't even joined this conversation) is told that because he is from Iowa-- that he is not qualified to discuss wolves.... but this nut job is from Idaho? Montana?....Wyoming??....

Oh, lets see....South Dakota!?

So, I guess if your from South Dakota-- your qualified to offer opinions on wolves-- but not if your from Iowa???

This is going to be funnier than I thought....

(By the way I found this website that proves wolves really came from outer space-- the site is based out of New Mexico--- could it be??????

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:


Yes , that is an awesome site!!

But wait a minute.... Brent (who hasn't even joined this conversation) is told that because he is from Iowa-- that he is not qualified to discuss wolves.... but this nut job is from Idaho? Montana?....Wyoming??....

Oh, lets see....South Dakota!

Indeed, he is a pretty fascinating self-made expert anti-wolfer. And, he is only about 20 miles from the Iowa Border. Damn, he's a neighbor!!! How charming.

Yup, anyone can be an expert and have his own self-declared society. I think I'll have to start one of my own someday.

Obviously, this guy as a whole lot more time on his hands though....

Brent

T.R. Mader's essay does a great job at making hunters look and sounds like a bunch of idiots.

Thanks for punching us all in the eye you misinformed quack!!


MG

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:


Yes , that is an awesome site!!

But wait a minute.... Brent (who hasn't even joined this conversation) is told that because he is from Iowa-- that he is not qualified to discuss wolves.... but this nut job is from Idaho? Montana?....Wyoming??....

Oh, lets see....South Dakota!?

So, I guess if your from South Dakota-- your qualified to offer opinions on wolves-- but not if your from Iowa???

This is going to be funnier than I thought....

(By the way I found this website that proves wolves really came from outer space-- the site is based out of New Mexico--- could it be??????

How many wolf packs are in Moscow ID now?

There are 6 known packs in the area immediately surrounding Moscow-- (unless you count when the Universities of Nevada or New Mexico come to town to play the Vandals-- then theres 6 1/2....

How about you?? 1? 5? 10? 100? (1000 I bet!)

IV

Just intrested to see how far the wolves have traveled so far. I've never read about wolves or wolf packs in Moscow, ID although you claimed to live among them.

I've have never claimed to live among them just reporting what the wolves are doing to the Elk in Yellowstone.

Maybe you could add 1? 5? 10? 100?, better yet 1000 zeros to your tag line to make it more accurate.

minus 300 posts from my total
(for all the times I should have just kept my mouth shut......)

LMN'S

quote:

Originally posted by Snapper:
I've have never claimed to live amoung them just reporting what the wolves are doing to the Elk in Yellowstone.

Hey dude, that's not allowed if you don't live there. Rules of the board here. Laid down and enforced by VG and kudud56. Only those that live with them can speak

T.R. Mader has a little ranch and church camp north of Gillette. He is known around town as a nutcase.

Brent: You dick warts that live in the flat lands and ARE NOT directly affected by Wolves are welcome to speak out as much as you want!
I have made, nor inferred, any "rule" against your free speech!
I just use your flatland status as ANOTHER reason not to pay one bit of attention to your bull shit!
Keep opening your mouth and keep putting your foot in it!
Its amusing, but nothing else!
But make no mistake there Brent, when you do say stupid things I will correct you - when I choose to do so!
Confuse that, with your brain fart about me making free speech rules, if you wish - it just adds more fuel to the fire that is representative of your public stupidity!
Brent- when did you last see Wolves harrying Big Game?
When did you last experience poor Big Game populations due to overabundance of Wolves?
When did you last testify at public hearings regarding what the Wolves are doing and your fears about what they are doing to the future of Hunting?
When did you last commiserate with an 82 year old native Montana Elk Hunter who constantly finds Elk carcasses (killed by Wolves!) and only spooked and flightey Game when he goes afield to Hunt! And now he sees packs of Wolves where he used to see herds of Elk?
When did you last contact your various legislators regarding your feelings about Wolves, their incredible over-population and the harm they are doing to our hard fought for Rocky Mountain Game herds?
When did you last commiserate with your next door neighbor about the horrific death (BY WOLVES!) of their prized cutting/roping horse (valued at $25,000.00?
When did you last commiserate (and give thanks that the human escaped safely!) with your neighbors when Wolves chased the wife home from her afternoon dog walking?
When were you last lied to by politicians and government officials when they responded to your direct inquiries regarding the Wolves that surround where you live?
Brent, I have been involved in each of these circumstances - within the last year! And many of these type circumstances repeatedly over the last several years!
In fact my friend Ben Yarbrough and I just last week witnessed a cow Elk backed up to a cliff facing three snarling Wolves - we witnessed this event from one of the main freeways in the United States - Interstate 15!
Speak your piece there DUDE but don't turn "pussy pissy" when you are confronted or corrected!
You may describe being "corrected" as some kind of "rules of the board" infringement and then "whining about it" in a "pussy pissy way"!
I call that type behavior being a PUSSY!
You ARE a pussy!
A FLATLAND PUSSY!
Again I could give a rats ass less what some DUDE from Iowa, USA has to say about Wolves - you don't have to live among them and see the harm and destruction they do first hand and year round!
I called the local Game Warden (Kerry Wahl at 406-683-6353) on Moday morning of this week regarding a dead Mule Deer and a dead Antelope that have been found dead and fed upon in the last few days! The Mule Deer was within 300 yards of my home. The Antelope was 600 yards away!
Now you might think - so what? The reason their deaths are unusual is that the field they are in (adjacent to my house!) is ringed (perimetered) by hog fence!
Coyotes can not get through, or over, this tall fence!
Unfortunately there was no snow on the ground and the tracks of the predatory culprit that killed (on different days) these two healthy yearlings (cursory autopsy showed no broken legs or gunshots etc) were not discernible on the frozen ground!
Personally, I think Wolves came and killed them!
Wolves have been OBSERVED jumping over a 7 foot high corral fence and killing 8 of the domestic sheep inside that corral! This was within 10 miles of my home! Why were the domestic sheep in that high fenced corral you might ask (naw - you are not smart enough to ask that pertinent question!) - the reason those domestic sheep had been placed in that high fenced corral was because your friends, the Wolves, had killed 22 sheep from that herd the night before! Not ONE sheep was feasted upon!
They were just killed!
A single lamb (according to newpaper reports) MAY have been carted off by that pack of Wolves the first night?
The sheep rancher had "hidden" what was left of his domestic sheep herd in this board fenced horse training corral because he was waiting for "officials" from the "guvmint" to come and verify the cause of the sheeps death! Then he could be issued PERMISSION to protect his livelihood!
Yeah, intellectual idiots from Iowa AND Berkeley helped make that RULE!
Within five miles of my house the Wolves have killed cattle, calves, Mule Deer, domestic sheep, horses, domestic pets and Elk - these kills have been verified as being by - Wolf!
In the county I live in the Wolves have been veriified to have killed llammas, horses, Coyotes, Mule Deer, Elk, Moose, Big Horn Sheep, domestic sheep, Antelope, cattle along with peoples pets!
Have much of THAT, back in Iowa, there Brent?
Thats just a sampling of SOME of the reasons I could give a rats ass less what you think about the Wolf problem here in the Rocky Mountains!
Its intellectual idiots like yourself from Iowa and New York City and Berkely that got us, ALL OF US, into this tragic situation (mess!) in the first place, with regards to the Wolves decimating game herds in many places, along with the related business's and commerce!
Thats another reason I pay you no heed - you are part of the problem!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Sounds to me like the areas with too many wolves should introduce the Super Wolves from Oregon. Let me explain; the Super Wolf has super intelligence and super physical abilties. With his super intelligence, the wolf can tell if you are simply pointing a finger at him or giving him the finger. In either case he will simply go on about his business of being a wolf. However, should you point something chrome/moly or stainless steel at him, and it doesn't matter which, he will instantly (this is where the super physical abilities comes into play) dig himself a hole and cover himself up with dirt! Remember, this is just another trick in the wolf's book. He has also been known to use these self made holes to ambush prey so be careful out there.

quote:

Hey dude, that's not allowed if you don't live there. Rules of the board here. Laid down and enforced by VG and kudud56. Only those that live with them can speak

Ah the peanut section has spoken! but pretty much liberal green replys!

Only good wolf is a dead one! No good has come from illegaly introduced wolves except to give brent and eddie a woody! Oh and iv to!

"wolves" government sponsered terrorists!

Reason 1115, why we don't need wolves!



Elk had disease common in wolves
By MATTHEW BROWN
Associated Press

An elk shot by a hunter outside Yellowstone National Park last fall carried a potentially debilitating tapeworm disease that can be transmitted by wolves, a state wildlife official said Wednesday.

State officials are investigating whether the elk contracted the disease from a wolf, or if it came from a coyote or dog, which also carry the tapeworm, said Mel Frost, spokeswoman for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The tapeworm, echinococcus granulosus, causes large, debilitating cysts to grow on the internal organs of elk, cattle and other hoofed animals.

Granulosus can be dangerous to humans, with symptoms ranging from coughing to brain impairment, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But Frost said her agency is not concerned about transmission to the public because the disease is difficult to contract and does not spread between humans.

Regarding wildlife and livestock, she said there was no concern of a widespread outbreak. Granulosus is found throughout the world, according to the CDC. It has been several years since Montana's last documented case, involving a moose in the northwestern part of the state, Frost said.

A group that wants wolf numbers drastically reduced outside Yellowstone seized on the incident as further evidence of the danger wolves pose to humans, livestock and other wildlife. The group, Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, has asked the Montana Legislature to fund a lawsuit to force the federal government to take wolves off the endangered species list. The government announced a delisting plan two weeks ago, but anticipated lawsuits from conservation groups could delay its implementation.

Yellowstone wolf biologist Doug Smith refuted the suggestion that the diseased elk points to flaws in existing wolf management.

"It's just one of many wildlife diseases. There's hundreds of them. And it doesn't cause particularly excessive mortality in the wolves or the prey," he said.

Wolves and related canids such as coyotes and dogs contract the disease by eating animals that carry granulosus in larval form. After the granulosus matures inside the host, its eggs are spread through the animal's feces. Grazing animals then pick up the disease by coming into contact with the feces.

The diseased elk near Yellowstone had cysts "from the size of marbles to the size of baseballs" on its lungs and liver, said retired state game warden Hank Fabich, who shot the elk in Paradise Valley.

"I'd killed elk there for 30 years but I'd never seen anything like that," Fabich said, adding that he blamed the incident on the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone a decade ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:

quote:

Originally posted by Snapper:
I've have never claimed to live among them just reporting what the wolves are doing to the Elk in Yellowstone.

Hey dude, that's not allowed if you don't live there. Rules of the board here. Laid down and enforced by VG and kudud56. Only those that live with them can speak

Brent, Brent, Brent

I'm sure you could see I live in Mt about 125 miles from the park as the crow flies.

Moscow, ID is about 350 miles from the park. I've never read wolves are living around Moscow ID. It's just an observation I wanted cleared up.

I did notice you turned down my offer to send surplus wolves your way instead of shooting them. In your post you turned my offer down stating you think there were wolves in IA already. Interesting, that is what we tried to tell everyone when they wanted to release these large predators in Yellowstone.

You probably don't see anything wrong with the lake trout in Yellowstone lake Either.

Anyway, most of us live around them, only IV lives among them.

Snapper, send me all the wolves you got. I'm happy to take them.

No, I could not see that you live 125 mi from the park - your location is just MT - it is a sorta big state you know - or maybe you don't.

And, yes, I do see a problem with lake trout in Yellowstone Lake. I am aware of the attempted irradication program as well. So, in addition to being wrong about that, what's your point?

Brent

quote:

Hey dude, that's not allowed if you don't live there

Here is the first point you missed. My location is listed as MT. and Yellowstone is within MT, WY and ID.

2nd point was lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, another unusally large predator that was not found in Yellowstone before man helped out. There are many examples of released species that are now out of control.


I find it interesting you first turned down sending wolves to Iowa and now want all the wolves we could send.

quote:

Originally posted by Snapper:
Brent,

quote:

Example: A few years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed the state should take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt wolves were impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a short trapping season on the wolf.

Did you call the MN DNR and tell them they are wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Snapper:

quote:

Hey dude, that's not allowed if you don't live there

Here is the first point you missed. My location is listed as MT. and Yellowstone is within MT, WY and ID.

2nd point was lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, another unusally large predator that was not found in Yellowstone before man helped out. There are many examples of released species that are now out of control.


I find it interesting you first turned down sending wolves to Iowa and now want all the wolves we could send.

Dude, you have reading comprehension problems. Get some help. It will change your life.

Brent

I'm awaiting my box of warm and happy wolves.

Dude! LOL! Sounds more like the iowa janitor than a iowa professor.

Uh, Brent, I am from eastern Iowa, and if anyone sends you wolves, please keep them at YOUR house. We had some morons a few years ago in the Cedar Rapids area, that were cross breeding wolves with German Sheperds. Those creatures are now illeagal to own most places, because they tended to be unmanageble, and incredibly dangerous to (imagine that) domestic pets, livestock, and children. There is a good reason that the ranchers in the northern Rockies irradicated the wolf, and I believe re-introduction was a bad idea. Just a flatlander's opinion : )

DGK

Kudzu,
Can't you be just a little more original in your insults? I know you have little imagination, but really, you must strive to do better - or give up.

DGK, Wolves are coming - like it or not. And not by mail. They will deliver themselves just fine thank you. I fail to understand why you are so worried about them. I guess folks just can't handle what they aren't used to.

I do agree that breeding dogs with wolves on purpose is stupid. But there are all types of idiots out there.

Brent

quote:

I do agree that breeding dogs with wolves on purpose is stupid. But there are all types of idiots out there.

I don't see anything wrong with that janitor dude bob!

It is America, and everything is ok by you liberals. Man marrying a man, ok, woman marrying a woman, ok, Abort a human, ok, hand outs with out work,ok,wolves in areas that never had them becuase it gives you a woody, ok, end logging, even though it is a renewable resource,ok, the list is a mile long. You like wolves, I like wolf/dog hybreds! They have been here since mankind domesticated the worthless wolf. So let them be!

Wolves! Government/liberal sponsored terrorists!

The US Fish and Wolf Service just doesn't want to get along and apparently they don't want any elk left !

Back to court! More lies from the lying USF&WolfService!

Federal rejection of Wyo wolf plan essentially kills legislative bills
By WHITNEY ROYSTER
Star-Tribune environmental reporter Saturday, February 10, 2007





JACKSON -- The federal government can't legally allow Wyoming to kill wolves to protect big game until wolves are removed from federal protection, the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says.

But state officials question whether the federal agency even tried to make such an accommodation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Friday rejected Wyoming's proposal to kill wolves in certain areas to protect elk herds and other forms of wildlife that serve as the wolf's primary prey, meaning that "placeholder" bills moving through the state Legislature to work on a management plan essentially won't be considered, leaders of the Legislature's both houses said.

In a letter delivered to Wyoming Senate President John Schiffer, R-Kaycee, and House Speaker Roy Cohee, R-Casper, on Friday, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall states that the federal government wouldn't grant the state's request for permission to kill wolves preying on wildlife.

"(M)y best advice is that we work together to construct a Wyoming wolf management plan that will enable the Service to delist wolves in all of Wyoming and which will also provide the basis to successfully fend off requests to enjoin the Service's final decision," Hall wrote.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal seemed particularly bristled at a Friday news conference by the FWS's response, saying if federal officials "want to come to their senses, we're glad to talk to them."

He said federal officials allow the state to kill wolves impacting livestock, but not wildlife. That sentiment is based on politics, not science, he said.

"Why should Fish and Wildlife care if you're sustaining wolves on livestock or wildlife if the goal is a number of packs?" he said. Federal officials have eyed 15 as the number of breeding pairs each state should maintain to achieve wolf recovery goals.

In the letter, Hall also said he agrees wolves are impacting wildlife populations.

Mitch King, regional director for the FWS based in Denver, said everyone knows wolves eat elk and have an impact on populations, and "to suggest otherwise would be foolish."

He said according to existing regulations, it must be proved wolves are having an "unacceptable" impact on wildlife. That means a state must prove ungulate populations are below objective levels, and the reduction "can be attributed primarily to wolves."

King said it is "extremely difficult" to identify an elk population in Wyoming that's below objectives, and extremely difficult to say wolves are the sole reason for the decline.

He also said the agency looked into adjusting that language to lower the bar proving "unacceptable" impact, but changing a rule means going through a public process.

If that process were started today, it would be another year before the rule change would likely be approved the same time wolves are expected to be removed from the Endangered Species List.

"You don't gain anything time-wise," he said, something reiterated in Hall's letter.

Freudenthal characterized the FWS's response as "it's too much trouble for us to accommodate a change" in existing rules.

And, Freudenthal said before wolves are formally removed from the ESA, there could be 40 wolf packs eating exclusively elk that the state could not control.

Freudenthal said earlier negotiations outlining new areas where wolves would be considered trophy game in northwest Wyoming is still something the state would consider.

In a separate letter received by the state Friday, King said wolves on the Wind River Indian Reservation would not be included in wolves Wyoming must manage as a state. The tribes there have developed a draft management plan that does not commit to manage for any specific number of breeding pairs, and that land is not under the purview of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Without monitoring, there are no assurances or accountability for wolves there, King said.

Still, he said it is possible for the tribes to reach an agreement with the state to manage and monitor wolves, and the issue could be revisited.

I found this interesting!

Check out the link. I've included a couple of paragraphs for your review.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/02/10/news/wyoming/25-wolves.txt

Wyoming officials reject new federal wolf plan
Kaycee legislator says there are more than 350 wolves in the state
By The Associated Press
CHEYENNE - With the federal government saying it won't allow Wyoming to kill wolves to preserve the state's wildlife herds over the next few years, top state officials said Friday they will continue to fight the federal government in court over wolf management issues.

"Basically what we were told, 'take a hike and go look at your elk while they're still alive, because if the wolf population keeps growing, they're not going to be there that long,' " Schiffer said.

What, no wolf packs in Moscow, ID?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a 35 page proposal including the current map of the know wolf packs of gray wolf populations Friday.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/02/09/news/state/35-delist_x.txt

Delisting plan calls for wolf status varying by geography
Creatures could be shot on sight in some areas, safe in others
By MIKE STARK Of The Gazette Staff

"It's a complicated issue," said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wolves in the Northern Rockies have long since passed one of the key federal benchmarks for recovery: at least 300 wolves with 30 breeding pairs.

And finally, any wolves that wander out of the Northern Rockies "distinct population segment" area, and into Colorado or the Dakotas or elsewhere, would be protected under federal law because they're not part of the delisted area. (Sweet!!!)

"All we have to do is protect wolves in a significant portion of its range," Bangs said. "Protect that core population and we're good to go" Bangs said.

Nope, no wolf packs in Moscow, Id in 2004 (when that map was created-- I assume you can read?) Take a look at the lower right (other right) corner.

2004.

I'll help you with the math-- that was 3 years ago.

Any more questions??

But, if the USFWS says no wolf packs around Moscow, ID; then I guess I must be lying to you.

USFWS is always right.

They say the wolf needs to be in the ecosystem-- and again-- they are always right, right?

Which way is it? Are they the authority or are they not?

Oh, let me guess, when and if you agree-- then what they say is fact-- but if you disagree-- they are mindless idiots.

Brilliant! That is an excellent strategy by which to get your point across-- does that really work for you in other places?????

Keep up the good work.

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:

But, if the USFWS says no wolf packs around Moscow, ID; then I guess I must be lying to you.

Lets go with that!

They would certainly have updated the map to include your 6 packs if there actualy were wolves there.

It was announced on Wyoming news channels last night that if no control of wolves and no protection of big game species in Wyoming, from wolves, elk and moose tags will be and are being reduced. Especially in the northwest corner of the state. And what will 3 or 4 more years bring?

The US fish and wolf service is wanting to stall and use the yellowstone overpopulations as brood stock, to spread naturally into surrounding states. They especially want them in Colorado. Which I am sure they are there.