Did you send in your comments to NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov ?
I'm guessing that 90% or more are just going to sit back and do nothing and then complain about the situation. At least if you send in an email you can say you tried! So take 2 minutes out of your day and send them a note. Doesn't have to be anything more than what I wrote below. Just make sure you send it in. The Wolf huggers are sending them in by the truck loads!!!

"I think its time for the FWS to claim victory for the re-introduction of the wolf and remove them from the endangered species list. Both Montana and Idaho have demonstrated that they have sound management plans and you have agreed with them. Allowing public 'politics' to cloud science is asinine!

Please put my comment in the 'pile' with the rest of the people that want the wolf delisted.

Thank you for your time.

Ivan Clark
Baltimore MD"

Sounds like a fine idea....

IV

As a wolf-hugger, I think your email is just peachy indeed. Got no problem with it at all.

Brent

NOT look, Brent; need NOT look...


Frans

Wow, nearly 200 views and only 3 replies?

Where are all the big bad hunters that hate the wolf? Here's your chance to make a diffrence. I know most of you are smart enough to type a complete sentence so open your email, type one out, sign it, and send it off. It will take you all of 2 min if that.

In the end it won't surprise me if they are NOT delisted. As a whole, hunters are probably the most complacent bunch of whiners that god ever created. Think about it, do you know a single one one of us that doesn't complain about one thing or anther when it comes to hunting? We're all guilty of it!

GET OFF YOUR ASS AND SEND IN A COMMENT!

I don't care if you EVER hunt in MT/WY/ID, but we need to band together to defeat this! Do us a favor, ya never know one day you might need something.

quote:

Originally posted by Ivan:
Did you send in your comments to NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov ?
I'm guessing that 90% or more are just going to sit back and do nothing and then complain about the situation. At least if you send in an email you can say you tried! So take 2 minutes out of your day and send them a note. Doesn't have to be anything more than what I wrote below. Just make sure you send it in. The Wolf huggers are sending them in by the truck loads!!!

"I think its time for the FWS to claim victory for the re-introduction of the wolf and remove them from the endangered species list. Both Montana and Idaho have demonstrated that they have sound management plans and you have agreed with them. Allowing public 'politics' to cloud science is asinine!

Please put my comment in the 'pile' with the rest of the people that want the wolf delisted.

Thank you for your time.

Ivan Clark
Baltimore MD"

Who's email is that and what letter? I've been busy drumming support for our 2nd Ammendment rights due to the idiots introducing H.R 1022. Nate

It goes to the FWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service).... No one person in particular, but to a public comments address rather.

I attended a public meeting last Tuesday, March 6th, in Boise. It was held by the U.S. F&WL agency.

I spoke in favor of delisting the gray wolves.

There were about 210 people there, and I'd guess that the percentage was about 70% AGAINST delisting and 30% FOR delisting of wolves.

According to the U.S. F.& W.L., there are presently 76 wolf packs in Idaho, with between 650 to 700 wolves. The original plan called for 10 packs and 100 wolves in Idaho. The goal was long ago reached and now far exceeded.

The pro-wolf/anti-hunting organizations were there in force, as were many individual pro-wolf/anti-hunting men and women, young and old. I must say some of their statements to the Commission were extremely emotional, and in some cases, half lies, downright ignorant, and very exaggerative.

I was disappointed that more hunters who favored delisting did NOT show up. The meeting had been advertised for weeks in newspapers, and on the televison and radio stations. I think a lot of hunters who talk a lot about "the damned wolves," and "sumpin' gotta be done," are, as the old saying goes, "All show and no go."

The various anti-hunting/pro-wolf orgs at the Boise meeting, also made it very plain that they want the gray wolves to populate Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and the Dakotas, just as they have here in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

I'd bet a lot of money that if the wooofies ARE delisted, it'll be a long, long time -- if ever -- that they are legally hunted. The various anti-hunting groups such as Defenders of Wildlife, PETA, etc., etc., who have unlimited $$$$$$, will throw lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit against the various F&G departments that plan to have a hunting season on wolves.


Overall, a very interesting -- and sobering -- meeting and evening.

L.W.

quote:

NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov

I sent a good letter. I kept it very civil and used facts to make my point. Nate

Leanwolff;Why dont you start a seperate thread on this issue,I am afraid it is going to get lost in this one.
I heard on the radio this am that they had a similar meeting in Spokane on Friday.The pro-wolf-anti wolf vote was 70%-30%.I wil be surprised if they are de-listed in the next ten years.w/regards

We need to encourage all the officials not to look at the de-listing as a political issue but as a proper management approach. The wolves now have such a strong growth rate and population that they don't qualify as a "rare" or "endangered" species, and in fact are "introduced" and as such are not a "native" in the lower 48. Nate

Big Nate,

Do you have any info to back up the 'not native' claim? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've never seen any hard evidence of such.

The following was sent to me and it seems like this Thread is a good spot for it. Darn shame VG isn't here.
---

US Fish and Wildlife Service has been holding hearings recently in several Western State cities (Boise, Spokane, etc ) seeking public input on a government proposed delisting of gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act in the northern Rocky Mountains (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc). Because of lack of good notification of the general public and the super focus of environmental groups to get their people and agenda to those meetings much of the input has been resistance to delisting. (See The Post Register March 10, 2007 page B3 article - - as usual quoting the wolf lovers 3 to 1)

Sharon Rose (USF&WS @ 303-236-4580) Denver office advised ...that there is a Comment/Input Period on this matter until May 9, 2007 (but now is better). Send e-mail comments in favor of delisting the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves (include reason (s) if you want) to NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov and include your name and address.

Wolves are predicted to be over 2,000 in 2007 with the new crop of spring pups.

quote:

Originally posted by Ivan:
Wow, nearly 200 views and only 3 replies?

Where are all the big bad hunters that hate the wolf? Here's your chance to make a diffrence. I know most of you are smart enough to type a complete sentence so open your email, type one out, sign it, and send it off. It will take you all of 2 min if that.

In the end it won't surprise me if they are NOT delisted. As a whole, hunters are probably the most complacent bunch of whiners that god ever created. Think about it, do you know a single one one of us that doesn't complain about one thing or anther when it comes to hunting? We're all guilty of it!

GET OFF YOUR ASS AND SEND IN A COMMENT!

I don't care if you EVER hunt in MT/WY/ID, but we need to band together to defeat this! Do us a favor, ya never know one day you might need something.

Ivan, I was being more of a burr under the saddle blanket than trying to get into the biology aspect. The "native" term is fun to use against the agruement for protection. The wolves brought in now have been trapped outside of the area and in fact there's augument that they are not the same as the ones there in the past. I could care less. The point is that the introduced wolves didn't migrate into the area, they were dropped off. When lawyers get involved it becomes a matter of symantics. Introduced species are a different catagory than animals that are there naturally. They have far exceeded their original proposal for total numbers and the number of packs. Because of this the negative impact to the herds has been equally inverse. So if there are seven times as many wolves as they planned, there is also a predation of seven times as much game as they had allowed for in their "plan". The Yellowstone elk herd has dropped from over 18,000 head to about 6,000 in just a short time. It is an example of what will happen to all the herds until the wolves start getting sick from being to crowded, weak from starvation, ect.

The emotional types want to believe these guys are just like thier favorite Lab in the back yard playing with their kids. The political figures don't want to rock the boat, and the wildlife managers don't know what to do because we have not had this problem since any of them were even born. The "proctors" of game managment are not experienced with this, and back when wolves were a problem they treated them like vermin, so there was no real program to look back at and gain from.

I think you're watching a modern day experiment in wildlife management that will cost us for generations. It took decades to build the western herds back up to what they were, and it's taken less than one decade to to bring them down to the levels they were thirty years ago.

I don't have every statistic, but anyone who's ever looked into statistics knows that the numbers can be twisted around to reach opposite conclusions with the same data. I think what can't be ignored is the rate of change the introduction has caused. The wolf population can be called nothing less than explosive, while the decline in the game herds would be called alarming if it were due to anything else.

There are lots of heads in storage where the sun don't shine! Nate

Big Nate,
Fabulous post. Your last paragraph hits it on the head. Please, those of us who favor de-listing, please send e-mails to USF&W expressing your opinions. Those on the other side are definitely doing so.

I agree with what you say BigNate, but am surprised that you can't answer the question. Do you think its smart to claim something that its not, or is it ok to use such tactics since the other side stoops so low?

I've spent a fair amount of time trying to find out if there is/was infact any diffrence between the wolves of before compared to the canadian wolves that where transplanted. I was hoping that you might have some info. I hear that argument all the time about how the wolves that were introduced were not the same wolves that were here previously, just wondering if that argument really holds water.

Ivan, I was pretty specific. My first paragraph answered your question. But, I'll answer again. I DON'T KNOW MYSELF. I made the statement that there is argument in this area.
My issue is management practices or lack ther of. The key words in any bill or legislation are the ones that provide more privledge or special rights because of them. The wolves are not here in the lower 48 because we "preserved" and "protected" them as endanged. They're here because we trapped some from their home area and planted them.

I know there has been some speculation that at one time there were tigers on the N.A. continent. Does this mean we should introduce Bengal Tigers? I think not. Man isn't as wise to nature as he'd like to believe.

I believe there were a few wolves still around before the introduction. They were a rare thing to see. Now there are way more than anticipated but we have no plan to deal with them. If we can't get their status changed, it will make managing their population directly almost impossible.

My Grandfather was in Minn. back when wolves were common. The wolves devestated the deer and were hitting cows heavy. They had a bounty on them. He said it was the best thing to happen in the woods and it still took close to 40 years to bring back the deer.

Labeling wolves as rare, endanged, or threatened is rediculous. We shouldn't allow them to use these words in their arguments, they don't fit. Nate

quote:

Originally posted by BigNate:
My Grandfather was in Minn. back when wolves were common. The wolves devestated the deer and were hitting cows heavy. They had a bounty on them. He said it was the best thing to happen in the woods and it still took close to 40 years to bring back the deer.

Did your Grandfather mention that while the deer herd was "coming back" that the wolf populations increased as well - almost six fold?

Probably not, but if the wolves are what knocked the deer back, it is pretty hard to explain how they increased with the wolf populations blowing through the roof at the same time.

On the other hand, the heavy winters of th 60s and early 70s, the regeneration of second cut forest, and quite a few other things surely didn't have any effect at all. It was all wolves, pure and simple.

Such logic!
Brent

So then... Do you thinke we should remove all the elk from basically the entire western part of the US since most were 're-introduced', also lets pull all the big horn sheep, mt goats etc from all the areas where they were 're-introduced' etc. Whats good for one is good for the other right?

I'm all for getting the wolf delisted, but I don't understand your line of reasoning.

Brent,
I'm curious what you think of this. I have friends in both the Idaho F&G and USF&W who after a couple of beers will admit that prior to the introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf, there were already wolves in most of the range of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming where the Canadians were introduced, but in very small numbers and that there were never historically wolves in some of the areas where introduction occurred. They knew the wolves were there and in some instances had captured and collared some of them. They will also tell you these were not as big as the Canadian Gray Wolves and tended to be 30 or so pounds lighter and a few inches shorter. Since the "introduction" of the Canadians, these "indigenous" wolves have all but disappeared (hmmm wonder what happened to them....). They will also tell you that if they knew then, what they know now, they would have fought like hell to keep the Canadian wolves out. What we have with the introduction of what is legally an "experimental population" of Canadian Gray Wolves is an experiment that is out of control and there is probably no way to get the genie put back in the bottle. They will also tell you that along with the indigenous wolves and the ungulates that have been decimated many other predators (including coyotes that have been virtually wiped out of many areas of the wilderness by the Canadians), bobcats and now cougars and black bears are being impacted by the Canadians and that if left unchecked the game populations in many areas of the Idaho, Montana and Wyoming wilderness will be reduced to historically low levels in as little as three more years. They will also tell you that at this point, there is no real method (including de-listing and hunting) that will have any real effect on this outcome and this will turn out to be one of the worst ideas in terms of wildlife management in the last 100 years.

Ok guys take a breath. I can't tell what it is you think I'm saying.

I know for a fact that there were some wolves here before the "introduction" and they were protected but remained in small numbers. I had heard of these aurguments about whether or not the Canadians were the same species. I am simply trying to point out that while the pro introduction peeps are wanting to protect them under the guise of endanderment, or threatened status. The thing of it is, there are some legal definitions involved. The delisting should be based on what would be good for the wildlife and nothing else.
I'm not saying we should wipe them out but manage them. We should not allow them the status of protection while they are causeing such declines in deer and elk heards. That's not so confusing.

Brent, as for my Grandfathers statments, all I can do is go by what he said. He was there, I wasn't. Nor was anyone else my age. There are never events in wildlife management that involve only a single elements. You need to read what I'm writing, and not be so quick to be offended because you don't think anyone else but you know anything. Sometimes people don't see eye to eye on things. Do you really want to alienate everyone who may disagree with you on one subject, when they may be an ally on another matter?

I've repeatedly made the statement that this should be about balance and game management. Not anything else. It seems to me this has become a power struggle between sides while in the mean time the management aspect is suffering. Nate

EB, I wonder about your IFG and USFW friends. Are they biologists or LEOs or something else and do they regret it for the public outcry and hassles it has created doe for them or do they regret it for the impacts that wolves have actually had on the forest ecosystems of the mid Rockies?

I'd be interested to know what their take is on overbrowing of the range, aspen recruitment, grassland expansion etc. All well linked to elk and strongly affected by wolves.

I'd also ask two more questions. Supposing there is truth in their stories about the strangely ghost-like populations of wolves prior to the reintroductions. If they were there and were different, what prevented their extinction by Canadian wolves in the first place? Even long before europeans, what protected these tiny wolves from extinction way back then?

And what now (and then) prevents the Canadian populations of lions and bears and coyotes etc from being extinguished by these monster wolves? Last I heard, they were doing well in the Canadian Rockies.

I'd also be curious to know what their thoughts are on Canadian wolves vs no wolves at all. It seems to me that an ecosystem with wolves of most any type would be closer to the normal condition than an ecostystem without wolves at all.

I have strong, very strong, doubts that were ever any areas where wolves did not exist historically but unguluates did. What would prevent wolves from colonizing such areas?

BigNate, you may be too young to have been in Minnesota at that time, but I'm not. I was there in Northeastern most MN where the majority of the wolves were - hunting deer which were scarce as can be. Now, they are super abundant in comparison, yet the wolf population has gone from 500 to 3000+ or something like that.

I dunno about your Gramps, but I was there....

Brent

Brent, These guys are biologists and have been around for a long time and have spent most of their careers in the bush. Not the "johnny come latelys" with a degree, an agenda and little if any backcountry experience. As I'm sure someone like yourself who loves wolves knows there are around 24 recognized subspecies of the Gray Wolf (Canus Lupus) and they vary in size and weight from an average of about 50lbs to 175lbs, with the Canadian Gray, being among the largest of the subspecies. They also come from some of the harshest country and the Idaho, Montana, Wyoming areas they have been introduced to have relatively mild climates by comparison to the Canadian Rockies. It is not surprising that they have adapted quickly and are expanding their numbers very rapidly as they have been genetically adapted to much tougher conditions. If you look at the various subspecies of wolves, the larger ones all come from the colder climates with he smaller wolves (such as the Mexican Gray and Mexican Red) coming from much warmer climates. The wolves that inhabitated intermountain west were in between according to my friends. They are dismayed at the wolves because they have been allowed to expand way beyond the recovery goals that were put in place originally and this exposive expansion is fueling the old animus between the wolves and those who live with them, which is making everyone's job harder. If you go to the USF&G website and look at the predation reports you will see that the numbers are expanding week to week as the wolves continue to move out of wilderness and human/livestock/pet/wolf interactions are way, way up.
I don't know what you mean about the "overbrowsing" situation (I assume aimed at the reduction of the mule deer herds) and the "grass land" expansion due I think you implied the expansion of the Elk herds. There is a lot of the back country that is going from brush land to grass land. Also, at least in Idaho, most of the bitter brush, which is prime winter deer browse is getting old and disappearing as for some reason it is not reseeding and growing new plants. Even in areas where they have tried to plant new bitterbrush and protect it, it is simply not taking. I don't think this is due to too many elk, but the reason the elk herds had expanded was because the habitat was in the process of changing naturally from brush land to grass land. Even in fire areas the bitter brush and other browse is not coming back like it should.
As for the question between the Canadians or no wolves, the question is moot. They are here and absent some epidemic, they are here to stay; My friends will say that they would have liked to keep it the way it was, with the indigenous wolves and some efforts to increase their numbers because no one anticipated the explosive and compounding 20% per year growth in the numbers of the Canadians.

quote:

Originally posted by EB:
It is not surprising that they have adapted quickly and are expanding their numbers very rapidly as they have been genetically adapted to much tougher conditions.

Genetically adapted to "tougher" conditions? How does a species adapt to "tougher" conditions?

Are you saying that being bigger is an advantage for them?

If so, why weren't the previous "medium" sized wolves not outcompeted by the larger wolves from Canada? What was the selection pressure which caused the earlier wolves to be smaller than these putative Canadian wolves??

If conditions are different now, wouldn't it seem reasonable that the selection pressure would have been for the wolves to increase in body mass over time? If the conditions are the same, wouldn't it seem reasonable to believe selection will work towards favoring smaller wolves in the future?

Also, when you say genetically "different" do you know of alleles which are unique to the "Canada wolf" versus the historic wolves? Are some of the allelic ranges and frequencies different? Significantly different??

Just some questions.......

IV

IV, This is what I was told by biologists and fyi also what I learned by doing just a small amount of research on the web. Google Gray Wolf Subspiecies and you will find a lot of information about distribution of the various subspiecies, size, etc. and you will also find that the size of the various groups according to the studies cited varies generally from larger to smaller as you move north to south. I note you are from Moscow. If you look at the map of documented packs in Idaho, you will see that there is only one documented pack north of Moscow (the Calder Pack), it seems like the other 700 or so wolves in Idaho like the "warmer" weather to the south. btw, I'm not trying to advocate for or against the wolf here. I've just been trying to say what some folks who are involved in the situation are willing to say and what I'm sure others are thinking. By the very terms of their introduction, the wolves in Idaho were an "experimental" population. So all I can say is that based on one's perspective, the "experiment" has either been wildly successful or an utter and complete disaster. Since I spend about 60 or more days a year in Central Idaho, I'd say that most of the folks south of you think it's the latter

quote:

Originally posted by EB:
So all I can say is that based on one's perspective, the "experiment" has either been wildly successful or an utter and complete disaster. Since I spend about 60 or more days a year in Central Idaho, I'd say that most of the folks south of you think it's the latter

......and most folks to the north, most folks to the west, most folks to the east, and probably most folks who live here. What does where I live have to do with the questions I asked above??

I guess if we want to discuss wildlife management and the role hunting plays in it-- this forum would be a good place to do so.

The longer I watch the continual round and round circle arguments about this issue the more I realize this has nothing to do with AMERICAN HUNTING and only to do with POLITICS.

If you want to discuss what "people south of Moscow, Idaho" think about the wolf than I suggest posting a thread to the "political forum" where it belongs.

IV, Don't be so sensitive. My point had nothing to do with politics. I was simply trying to point out that the Canadian Wolves, which originally came from an eco system much more like the upper pandhandle of Idaho then central and south central Idaho seem to like and have adapted to the warmer climates to the south and have not made much of a push to "go home". Although, yes, I personally happen to believe that when it comes to wildlife and management of that wildlife, the folks who are most impacted by that wildlife on a daily basis should maybe have a bit more say in how it's managed. This goes not only for wolves, but all game and non-game animals. But that's only my opinion and I respect the opinions of others that think differently. Take care, EB