Interestinly enough it doesn't mention if the wolves are dening on public or private land.

I still can't understand how ranchers are "first in line" when it comes to public lands... Isn't predation part of getting your grass for a 1/10 of what everyone else pays on leased private land???

That is a good point Ivan, I think predation of stock by wolves is a new cost of doing business, if the cost becomes too great and someone cannot stay in business because of wolf predation then obviously grazing cattle in Mt, Id or WY is not the most efficient means of production. Things always change, clothes were once made in the USA and now they mostly come from offshore, before 1970 most cars were made in the USA, now most come from offshore. In economic terms this is the most efficient way for us to get what we and at a price we want.

My great-uncle was a cattle rancher in Republic, WA during the 50's, 60's and 70's; he fought with the grizzly most of the time, he fought coyotes during calving and cougars ALL of the time. For him, it kept the wild in WILDERNESS,if he didn't want it, there were lots of opportunities to raise cattle in areas like Yakima or Ellensburg or TRi-cities that didn't and still don't have these problems. That was part of what drew him to the area, land was cheap BUT it was a TOUGH life! He knew going in that things might change and he may lose his livelihood. It was risk. He got out of the business when other factors made it impossible to turn a profit, he didn't whine, he didn't cry about it. HE is still alive today (96) and he thinks that what cattle ranchers have to deal with today compared to what he had to deal with on a daily basis is a joke! They have it way to easy! (I was quite surprised by his response when I asked him about the wolves)

IV

But some of us detest change! I could write volumns of the change that just I have experienced and sufferd through. And I didn't ask for a lot of it. I have and did cope.

I also think the ranchers will cope, like they have a choice, give up a family tradition that has been in place for a couple of generations, or cope! I hunt on a couple of private ranches here, that are family owned, and they or ok to a degree with wolves and bears, but they would sure like to be able to shoot them when they see them. Other wise they just have to set and watch. I guess it would be like having a store in down town LA, and when thieves walk in and steal property, you just stand there and watch!

But it isn't a level playing field, they have little or no control.

You don't want this country to totally give up every endeavor of free enterprise that actually sells real goods do you? Agriculture is what founded this country. Farmers and ranchers sell real products, not some damn program, or piece of paper. Where are we right now on importing goods? I don't know but I bet it is more than we sell!

And as for where that den is I think it is on public land. It said north east of Farson, that is on the edge of the Red Desert.

If you would quit posting I could get some work done.......

Does your boss know about this posting addiction? I took the day off to babysit my grandaughter, I wish she would go to sleep! One handed typing sucks!

My family also has forest alotments... Their consensus... They will live with the wolves, but would really like to be able to shoot them if they have the chance.

I was talking with my uncle about this, he runs about 250 head on a couple diffrent alotments. Since the reintroduction he has lost 6-7 calves a couple cows, and steers... Some of which were with in 100 yards of his house, but the majority of the loses occured on public land that he said that was just part of running them there.

Anyway what he said kind of surprised me as well. He said that they lost about 6-7 head due to lupine last year (I think thats the poison that the cows eat).. He said that they could have prevented it if they would have sprayed, but didn't bother... The thing that they don't like about the wolves is they have their hands tied and can do absolutely nothing about them... He said that if they could just shoot em when they see em they would make them feel a lot better even if they didn't bother to hunt them...

Idaho "Intellectual Idiot" Vandal: I just got back from a long robbery suppression detail out on the west coast. While there I renewed acquaintance with many old friends and sporting buddies.
I had a great time and got to view (work near) the area where the "intellectual idiot" federal game biologists failed so MISERABLY in trying to save the now extinct run of Steelhead in question!
I of course did not state and do not contend that these intellectual idiots made any law all on their own! They did participate extensively in removing the bounties on seals and sea lions in Puget Sound. For that they earned "intellectual idiot" status! And then they further compounded the merit in being classified as "intellectual idiots" in their absolute failure to solve a SIMPLE problem.
You may hold them in some esteem but I and legions of sportsmen in the state of Washington (and Alaska!) do not! These "greens" are classified as worse than just "intellectual idiots" by most sportsmen I know! And I know a lot of sportsmen!
I must beg off for a short time in full rebuttal of your latest batch of "intellectual idiocy" as I need to take some suits to the dry cleaners and catch up on some chores around "Casa El Varminto" here!
By the way I Hunted extensively in the Republic area during the 1960's and 1970's (and later) but never cut any Grizzly sign! Lots of Black Bear in the area during that time though. I never even heard a rumor of Grizzlies in the area during the time I Hunted there.
And by the way it was the green "intellectual idiot" types that got the bounties removed from the Cougars up that-a-way REMEMBER! Thus causing some of the problems your Uncle had with over-predation on his cattle and the loss of Mule Deer populations thereabouts as well!
Stand by IV (ii!) for more corrections!
Your status as a do nothing "intellectual idiot" (all in fun OF COURSE!) will soon be
further enhanced and re-affirmed!
Long live the Okanogan!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Hey VG! Good to see you are back, lots of insanity around the forum! Sorry you had to go to W. WA. what a drag, every time I go back it makes even happier that I no longer have to deal with it. Anyway, I look forward to your rebuttal. Yes, my uncle dealt with the grizz extensively in the late 50's and early 60's.

IV

Area 9, moose area, which used to have 10 tags alloted is now down to 3!!! WHy?? Hmmmmm. gremlins? UFO's????? Drought?????


WOLVES AND BEARS??????

Good to see you back VG!

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Big Game thread!


Good for Montana it will be interesting to say the least. I am sure Ed Bangs will punish Wyoming. I was in Garden Valley Idaho recently and read a report from the IG&F that was tacked to the wall. It showed that the elk numbers are about half what they were in 94. I wonder what has happened since 94 that would change elk populations????????

June 25, 2005



State takes reins in wolf management
Associated Press

HELENA - Federal wildlife authorities on Friday turned over management of gray wolves in Montana to the state, a long-awaited step in efforts to rebuild a stable wolf population throughout the region.

"This basically gives us the key to the car and the credit card," said Carolyn Sime, wolf recovery specialist for the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "What it means is that at this point, the state steps up to the plate in the management of wolves, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes a step back."

The federal agency's decision Friday is viewed as an important step in the effort to eventually remove federal protections for wolves.


Wolf populations in Montana will continue to receive federal protections, but officials say allowing Montana wildlife managers to begin implementing the state's management plans will make the transition easier once federal protections are removed.

"It's been a long time coming, but the people of Montana worked hard over the past 10 years with the expectation that the wolf would one day be delisted and managed among all the state's wildlife," Jeff Hagener, director of the state wildlife agency, said in a written statement. "This agreement is confirmation that the people of Montana did their part to restore the wolf in this part of the country."

Wolf reintroduction has been a contentious issue since efforts were first launched in the 1990s with the transplant of Canadian wolves to the Yellowstone ecosystem and in Idaho.

Since then, the "experimental" populations that were reintroduced have bred and thrived, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to remove federal protections if Montana, Idaho and Wyoming all developed acceptable plans for managing the animals once federal protections were removed.

The agency approved Montana's and Idaho's plans in January 2004, but said delisting could not move forward because of concerns with Wyoming's plan. With delisting delayed, the government gave Montana and Idaho more leeway in handling wolves in the interim.

Friday's decision extends that even further for Montana, allowing the state to actually implement major portions of its plan.

"I think that's a good thing, that states get to test out their plans with a little federal oversight," said Jon Schwedler, a spokesman for the Predator Conservation Alliance in Bozeman.

"Montana, of the three states, obviously has the most responsible plan," Schwedler said in a telephone interview.

Under the agreement, the state will conduct population monitoring, research and public outreach, in addition to determining when lethal or nonlethal wolf-control actions are appropriate.

"While the ultimate vision is delisting the wolf, this is an important interim step that recognizes the commitment and good will of the people of Montana," Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said in a statement.

Sime said the move allows state wildlife managers to gain more experience in dealing with wolves.

"From my perspective, this really is an important signal indicating that we are willing to take on some more responsibility and some more challenges when it comes to wolves," Sime said.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Area 9, moose area, which used to have 10 tags alloted is now down to 3!!! WHy?? Hmmmmm. gremlins? UFO's????? Drought?????


WOLVES AND BEARS??????

Good to see you back VG!

AMEN.......You have to be there to see it happen un-managed..Not just read about it...It is getting nasty and the Loggers and Ranchers around here..Well...The introduced Wolf lovers ought to ask them on a Friday night.

My opinion where it is happening "Big-Time".

Jayco

Kudu 56: I am just sick about the loss of Hunting opportunities in that area!
We all have the Wolves to thank for these lost opportunities.
I have an inside man at the rmef and he turned me on to the fact that the green idiots at the rmef originally gave $30,000.00 to the Wolf re-introduction program!
Of course my inquiries in that regard are all futile!
These dim bulb, dick wart, duffuses have really stepped in it this time - if I can get confirmation of this ridiculous act I will plaster the west with proof of their "good deed"!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
I spent about 10 days recently in the high wet basins of SW Montana chasing Black Bear (season closed June 15th) and I wish I had a dollar for every set of Wolf tracks I saw following cow Elk waiting for them to calve or to find their newborn calves!!!
My good friend, neighbor and Varmint and Big Game Hunting buddy just got back from a week in Yellowstone and the Jackson Hole area and he said the lack of calves with mature cow Elk was startling!!!
Now you bunny huggin, rump elfin, green dicked, intellectual idiots can blame anything and everything you want for these lost Hunting opportunities and lack of healthy calf crops and Wolves following healthy animals everywhere and the decimation of several of our Elk herds! But the real answer and the reality and what is really happening is the Wolves in their present "triple plus" wanted and promised populations are over predating on our hard fought for Elk and Big Game herds! I just came back yesterday from a fishing and Varmint Hunting trip to the Big Hole here in SW Montana and the lack of Moose there around my favorite lakes and streams was saddening!
I regretfully look for the Moose Hunting opportunities in that area to be reduced in the coming years!
Alright you green dick warts and intellectual idiots and rmef suck asses come up with something else to blame these latest reductions in Hunting opportunities on!
Maybe its the dang Al-Qeadas doin it?
Maybe its Martians?
Maybe it was Gordon Gecko and his Wall Street buddies?
With this liberal democrat governor here in Montana I do not see anything good happening on the Wolf front for at least 3 more years!
Hope for the best.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Jayco Creek: You are absolutely right about the people in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming being fed up with this shove down your throat, lie while their doing it and then lying some more once its done Wolf re-introduction bullshit!
One of the most popular bumper stickers in my area is "Save 100 Elk - Kill A Wolf"!!!
More later
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:
Jayco Creek: You are absolutely right about the people in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming being fed up with this shove down your throat, lie while their doing it and then lying some more once its done Wolf re-introduction bullshit!
One of the most popular bumper stickers in my area is "Save 100 Elk - Kill A Wolf"!!!
More later
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

..Ours also.The sick thing about it atleast in Idaho is the NezPierce tribe was to monitor them.My wifes best friend is a Tribal Memeber and she is as mad as us to the restrictions put on them by the Gov.There ready for a war party....

It is sad that those that just read it believe it without seeing for themselves.

My opinion only..Jayco

Ivan: Who the fuck cares on this Big Game Hunting forum what the Wolves do to domestic cattle, domestic horses, domestic sheep and domestic llamas (all of which have been killed by Wolves in my area!)???
The now triple over populated (ALREADY!) re-intrduced Wolves are killing off some of our hard fought for Elk, Moose, Deer and Big Horn Sheep herds!!! And I warn that they will do more harm to Big Game Hunting opportunities in the near future.
And for your information wild Elk actually prefer grass that has been cropped off by grazing cattle!!! Don't believe me contact the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks Department. Ask them. They have recently done studies on this and made documentaries showing this preference in grazing, of the wild Elk!
And your idiotic comment on the ranchers paying 1/10th market value for their grazing rights in National Forest lands is just that IDIOTIC!
You and your green assed buddies are comparing grazing fees for cultivated field acreages to National Forest sparsely grassed (comparatively!) acreages.
Typical fucking lies, obfuscations and distortions of you greens! Fuck you very much for that!
And this - maybe you should call the Forest Service folks and tell them you don't think you are paying enough for your Big Macs and you want to pay more for them!
And at your urging you want them to raise their set prices for cattle grazing! Now remember when you do this they will probably laugh at you! Because, you ask? Because you know more than their experts who set the rates for grazing and have done so with congressional blessings for many many decades.
Now remember this also - that other FOOLS have contacted the Forests Service folks and obstructed other incomes that the Forest Service used to bring in on the hundreds of millions of acres they oversee! Do you have the ability to remember what happened to sustained yield logging leases on Forset Service lands?
Do you remember what happened to mineral acquisition leases on Forest Service lands? Etc, etc, etc!
My next door neighbor has been ranching in Montana and Idaho for many decades (6 decades +!). He leases Forest Service land for some of his ranches herds. He recently sold $16,000,000.00 worth of cattle at one sale! According to the Dillon Tribune and the Montana Standard newspapers this was THE largest single sale of cattle ever from western Montana! He has told me repeatedly that the price of grazing his cattle for the 4 months of summer is getting expensive to the point (payments to the U.S Governments Forest Service) it is harming his already slim profits, to the point of his considering selling his lands for subdivisions! He now allows Elk, Antelope, Deer and Bear Hunters to Hunt on many of his privately held lands that contain these game animals!
Do you think the retired yuppies from Manhattan and Berkely that will buy up his lands (when he has to sell them) will allow folks like me to Hunt on them?
Well Ivan let me answer that for you as I am not overly impressed with your thought process's so far in this regard - the answer is not only no, but it is - FUCK NO, YOU CAN'T HUNT HERE ANYMORE!!!
If you think its so cheap to raise cattle on Forset Service lands why don't you buy a herd and get in on the easy money???
I would like an answer to that question if you don't mind!
This thread is about lost Hunting opportunities due to Wolf over-population and over-predation on our hard fought for Big Game herds!
Get your head on straight man!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the RMEF did donate.

Couldn't leave well enough alone.....

Thats why I like you guys......

IV

God IV it took you long enough to respond! Where the hell you been? I love that emotcon! LOL!


Wolves baaaaad! Elk gooood! Dead wolves Betterrrrrr!

I will not only beat this dead horse I will ride it into a bottle of glue!

And speaking of horses, wild ones are in the same category as wolves!!!!! GOOD FOR NOTHING!

I was in Coeur D Alene for the weekend...and the only internet was dial up.

The only wolf I saw up there was the ^&^ksucker dealing blackjack at the casino......

IV

VG: I did call the Forest Service and let them know I would like to pay more for Big Macs (which is a lie because I dont ever eat those and I rarely eat beef--but nonetheless.) They said "NO PROBLEM!! SO it seems we have solved the wolf issue!!!

We just need to find a way to charge the hoople heads and dirt worshipers more for beef!! YEAH! If it costs them $10.00 per lb-----WHO CARES? Maybe they ought to learn how to hunt instead.

Huzzah!

IV

If I had any sense at all, I wouldn't be getting into the middle of an internet sh!tfight, but...

Predator-prey relationships, 1st or 2nd semester biology, at least for those who didn't major in the run-on sentence or beer: prey numbers increase, predator numbers increase, prey numbers peak and then decrease, predator numbers peak and then decrease, prey numbers hit bottom, predator numbers hit bottom, prey numbers begin to increase. Repeat.

Makes a nice little curve in the texbook, prey numbers swinging up and down with predator numbers lagging behind.

I suppose the textbooks should include a third line: volume of whining hunters. I expect it would follow the curve nicely.

Noel H: Well, freedom of speech is alive and well! Good luck...you can carry the torch for a few days.
A few pointers:
1) Dont take what VG says too personal..he's actually pretty cool (a little misinformed at times but...)
2) Dont always take the bait.......baiting is legal here on the AR forum although it is not legal in many states



IV

quote:

Good luck...you can carry the torch for a few days.

Hehe, no thanks. Too many exclamation marks around here for my taste.

Allright...fine. I'll run with the damn thing then.

1) So a guy sells $16 million worth of cattle and I am supposed to be concerned about his profits or financial well being?????? HA!HA!HA!

Thats funny.

2) Triple overpopulated? (or whatever)
Well, this is where you are sort of correct, sort of not. You may be correct in the fact that the feds said 1000 wolves or whatever and now we have far more. But, (and you knew there would be a but)the ESA also mandates using the best available science at the time and since the FEDs made that promise (which they should ot have) we have developed the tools to look at populations at the genetic level. When a population decreases from 5000 to say only 10 and then begins to go up again, the genetic composition of that population when it reaches 5000 is not the same as when the population was 5000 before, it is far less diverse. This is bad. But it is what it is.

3) Hunting opportunity?
We have kicked that one and over, if one wants to review that argument just go back about 2 months and 3 or 4 pages ago of this thread. Wolves are not solely to blame for lost hunting opportunity. In fact, in many cases they are merely displacing coyotes and having a zero net loss on hunting opportunity. I know, I know wolves eat elk deer blah blah blah. But I much prefer having wilderness be wild, I mean if we want no wolves no grizzly bears etc. Why dont we get rid of the trees too? I mean elk and deer can hide amongst them....and we may as well put up fences and section off the forest, we don't want them running too far. And then we can put roads in so that no elk or deer is ever more than 400 yards from a road, this will make the hunting much better. We could in fact, set up feeding stations so that when hunting season comes around we dont have to drive that far, we'll know just where they are.

I always thought Americans liked to be independent minded and appreciated the wilderness that we have. Getting rid of the wolves and bears to "tame" the wilderness has been done before------->EUROPE! I guess if you feel the politics and policies of places like France, England and Germany are the way to go, then yeah, lets extirpate everything in the woods that we find objectionable.....

Let the "greens" fill the woods with grizzlies and wolves, what better way to keep them in California? After a few of them get eaten, word will spread and they wont come up here anymore. I for one, feel fully prepared and competent to enter the woods no matter what the circumstance.

Overall, SCIENCE shows wolves will benefit the ecosystem at large over a wide temporal span.

Here we go again!!!!!

IV

I just hate to see what took 40 years to build up be destroyed in 7 or 8. We are dealing with an introduced population, not a naturally occuring one. Ih the history of mondern hunting there has never been an introduced population of large preditors into an area as large as Wyoming, Idaho, and MT. I know they won't wipe out all the elk and moose, even though no one can explain the demise of the shiras moose in Wyoming, which just happened to coenside with the wolf release.

I still see no good in having wolves, kill and eat elk, which lessons opportunity and income. And basically takes the great elk numbers and management back several decades. And restricts everyones access to outdoor areas.

quote:

But I much prefer having wilderness be wild...

Bravo. IMO, some folks are against anything that might take away "their" elk (or deer, or boar, or whatever) and that's as far as they take their thinking.

Seems to me that there are plenty of "hunting" opportunities for those folks, usually involving a few acres of fenced land and animals that, well, they're at least half wild, anyway.

It does suck in many ways to have to change some of the components of the ecosystem that has been built over the last 40 years, I agree completely. Change usually does suck.

One question to ponder: "Is what we have built up over the last 40 years going to sustain itself?" If we had left the ecosystem as it was- what would have happened? It is possible it may have remained just like it was. It is also possible (and much more likely) that it was headed for some major changes. 40 years is not more than a blink of the eye as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. Huge herds of elk existed for thousands of years with wolves all around, I have much more faith in the elk and deer to respond to the reintroduction of wolves than probably a lot of people here do. They are much more reslient as species then people give them credit for. Sure, they are taking a beating right now, its only been 9 years (really only about 3 or 4 with any real wolf pressure.)

As far as management goes I just prefer to err on the side of caution. I would rather see management of the outdoors directed towards as natural a state of equilibrium as possible than towards a state of human decided equilibrium. Wolves are an important part of the ecosystem that should be allowed to thrive to the point that ALL stakeholders are in compromise. We are just in the middle of a painful process that will eventually be the best thing for the ecosystem.

Oh yes,...I still think its funny....$16 million for a bunch of cows? And I need to even slightly concern myself with that???? COME ON VG!!!! Lets be real here at least.

If this guy is so distraught I'll trade places with him, sell all my cows and live off the $16 mil in Montana---->NO PROBLEMO! (With $16 mil I could give a shit how many wolves or grizzlies there are)

IV

$16 million for cows, what about $1 million for one wolf? That is what it cost for the original ones released, $1 million each. Yes a land of extravagence! And to do what? Eat game animals that will eventually have an effect on those that earn a living from hunting and hunters in general. Not so much as me, I don't hunt that much any more, but my sons, and thier children do. At least I can tell them what it used to be like!

You could be right, Kudu. But consider these possibilities:

1) We do nothing as far as reintroducing natural predators back in the 90's:

Possible scenarios:
a) Game populations continue on the righteous path they seemed to be on.
b) Game populations begin to head towards a "new" (I say new because evolutionarily speaking- even 1000 years is nothing--natural predators have been virtually eliminated for only about 100 years) equilibrium-i.e. CWD, EHD and losses of critical components to the ecosystem through changes in the behaviors of browsers and grazers like deer and elk. Hunters lose opportunity, hunting as a sport continues to lose momentum and the ranchers and farmers who count on the political support of hunters lose in other areas.

2) We reintroduce natural predators:

Possible scenarios:
a) Game populations take a dive towards a new equilibrium and hunters lose opportunity; those who make there living in these areas suffer as well.
b) Game populations take an initial dive but adjust to the new pressure of having natural predators again and eventually recover--what is lost through direct predation is offset by the increased carrying capacity of a healthier ecoystem.

Either scenario has risks.

Evidence suggests that had reintroductions NOT occurred in the early 90's, game populations may have still began to decline (albeit not as fast) due to the overall loss of integrity to the ecosystem health. Of course, we will never know, this is a BIG what if? Sound science shows the ecosystem WAS in the early stages of DRASTIC change.

Thus, option 2 (Reintroduce natural predators) seems like the best way to try and restore the ecosystem balance. If, under option 2, the populations merely dive and do not recover, ever---I suspect actions which make the most economic sense will be taken at that point. If in 10 or 15 or 20 years, the whole idea of a healthier ecosystem does not produce results,(i.e a healthier ecosystem producing more game than it does today) the path of least resistance will be taken--I believe the wolves would be extirpated again IF that occured.

Perhaps I am too much of the optimist, but I believe game populations will adjust; the ecosystem will regain much of its health and in a few years time we will have more hunter opportunity than we would have had by doing nothing. I also believe that the free market will come to a new equilibrium with respect to beef production and all of those industries affected. In some cases folks may be forced out----> this happens all over America, no one is guaranteed anything save for life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. My mother lost her retirement as a flight attendant due to 9-11, she has worked for United Airlines for 35 years!; I myself suffered major pay cuts in the past due to changes in the structure of the economy. Everybody takes it on the chin once in awhile.

It is difficult and should not occur without good reason, I believe this is good reason.

Just my daily ramblings!!

IV

quote:

1) We do nothing as far as reintroducing natural predators back in the 90's:

Possible scenarios:
a) Game populations continue on the righteous path they seemed to be on.
b) Game populations begin to head towards a "new" (I say new because evolutionarily speaking- even 1000 years is nothing--natural predators have been virtually eliminated for only about 100 years) equilibrium-i.e. CWD, EHD and losses of critical components to the ecosystem through changes in the behaviors of browsers and grazers like deer and elk. Hunters lose opportunity, hunting as a sport continues to lose momentum and the ranchers and farmers who count on the political support of hunters lose in other areas.

Or c)game populations eat their way down to dirt, experience a massive die-off, and the flora takes thirty years to recover to the point that any reasonable game levels can be sustained.

But hey, at least there wouldn't be any pesky wolves, eh?

Now , why would game populations eat their way down to dirt , when your fellow hunters could have harvested any excess ?

The wolf might have made some sense if they could have been confined to jellystone , but from a game management standpoint , NO sense at all for non-park areas .

Simply harvesting above the carrying capacity is certainly an accepted method. The problem with it is that it generally occurs during a short period of time and a lot of the population is taken. Besides the mere population reduction, predation pressure also influences behavior. i.e. we have all seen first hand how deer may become very wary of human presence in the woods within the first few days of deer season. Predation pressures from wolves and cougars etc. influences the behaviors of deer and elk for example by altering areas in which they will graze etx. A prime example is in SW Montana where wolves were first introduced, before reintroduction elk spent a lot of time browsing near streams in valleys. This browsing nearly wiped out the shade available for a number of the streams and the water twmp rose just a fraction. This in turn affected the health of the trout and other fish and organisms in the stream. It also may have led to a decline in beaver populations. The elk felt comfortabe in these little valleys. Once the wolves reappeared, it did not take long for them to figure out where the elk were spending a majority of their time. The subsequent pressure on the elk forced themm out of the valleys and the stream ecosystem began to recover.

I agree, hunting by humans is an important role for us to play, but it is more complex than simply kiliing the excess above an established carrying capacity.

IV

IV you make good points and I can't argue with your education, training, and knowledge of wildlife. But I think things would be fine with out the wolf. The wolf has wrecked havoc with elk and moose, in conjunction with the Grizzly. As for noels conjecture of eating everything to dirt all I can say is Give me a break!

I was reading Petersons Hunting last night, the 2005 big game forcast was in it., I looked under moose and elk forcast, no mention of to many problems with low elk numbers, time will tell and we will see. They love to use the drought as an excuse to protect the wolf. But the drought has broken here, and it was state wide for over 5 years. Elk in nonwolf areas are doing great with 25 to 35 calves per 100 cows, in high wolf population areas les than 5 calves per 100. the herd is going backwards.

Now as for Moose, and I will quote,according to Doug Brimeyer, he blames the weather to,Doug says,bears and wolves are increasing in numbers and having a "significant" impact on the moose population in the region north of Jackson. In 1991 there were "500" licenses availible in that area, this season there will be "50". End quote! Then he contradicts himself, the long term drought is also having an impact on moose numbers, except in the Snowy Range and Big Horns, where numbers are high, trophy quality is good,and success should be high. Funny thing, same drought has hit the Snowys and Big Horns, and to date, there is only one small pack of wolves in the Big Horns.

I blame wolves then grizzlys then maybe an itsy bitsy amount on the drought.

So today we were working and the local game warden drove by. He stopped to shoot the shit and I asked him flat up. His response, old time, long time employees, conservative hard liners in the G&f say point blank, the wolf was gotten ride of for a reason, and when they did we had good big game numbers with opportunity for everyone, hunters, nature watchers, photographers and all. The same group with in the G&F say no good will come from the wolf.

The younger, newer, liberal thinkings with in the G&F say the wolf is good, high big game numbers are bad. The wolf was needed.

I stand with the old timers! The only good one is a dead one!

On Controlling wolves;
Controlling wolf numbers is a little more difficult than you may think. Certainly rednecks with rifles will have little effect on the population as a whole. After a few are shot the rest wise up to a point where a hunter actually shooting a wolf is quite rare.
Culling from the air is a bit more effective in certain typres of terrain but as was discovered in B.C. some years back can have a paradoxical effect of splitting a pack into two or three packs. The kicker of course being that each pack will then have a breeding pair and instead of one you now have multiple breeding bitches.You have developed a very complicated political as well as biological problem. I was just glad to get a few more wolves out of Alberta initially but regret the Frankenstein you have their.

quote:

The kicker of course being that each pack will then have a breeding pair and instead of one you now have multiple breeding bitches.You have developed a very complicated political as well as biological problem. I was just glad to get a few more wolves out of Alberta initially but regret the Frankenstein you have their.

Thank you for replying!

quote:

As for noels conjecture of eating everything to dirt all I can say is Give me a break!

You're right, of course. Such things never happen. Now, someone remind me what elephant culling is for?

Now here is some good news! Remember they only kill the weak and sick, and only enough to eat!

Feds kill wolves in Farson area

By WHITNEY ROYSTER
Star-Tribune environmental reporter Wednesday, June 29, 2005




Wildlife officials have killed a female wolf and four pups outside Farson, after the wolves killed 13 pregnant ewes over two nights.

Mike Jimenez, Wyoming wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the wolves killed seven ewes the first night -- about June 7, according to sheep owner Jim Magagna. Officers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services were sent to trap and collar the wolves.

But the next night, the wolves killed six more ewes, and Jimenez said a decision was made to kill whatever wolves were in the area. The area is about 35 miles northeast of Farson in the foothills of the Wind River Mountains.

Wildlife Services officers caught the female, found her den and killed the mother and four pups last week. A male wolf -- also seen in the area in April -- was not found and did not come back to the den site, which Jimenez said was "not typical."

He said it is not known what happened to the male and two other pups that were not caught, but pups would not survive without a parent.

Magagna -- who is the executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association -- said one of his sheepherders found the dead ewes in the morning and immediately called Wildlife Services, which confirmed the losses to wolves. He said his understanding of the situation was one of the ewes was eaten, and the others were just "ripped up." He did not know the estimated value of the lost livestock.

"These were ewes that were pregnant and just ready to lamb, so it's going to be fairly high," he said.

The wolves were first seen in the area in April. In May, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal asked Fish and Wildlife in a letter to remove the wolves before problems started.

The agency said it agreed to trap and collar the wolves, but was unable to do so before weather prevented further efforts.

"While I am very skeptical of the excuse for suspending the capture and collaring of the wolves, I believe that a better and more reasoned approach would recognize the inevitability that the wolves will become 'problem' wolves and will ultimately have to be removed," Freudenthal wrote in May. "In my view, it would be in the best interest of the wolves, the Service, producers and livestock to capture and not only collar, but relocate the wolves prior to their establishing a den."

Freudenthal's May letter continued: "To me, this is akin to small children playing at a railroad crossing. Peril is certainly in the absence of active supervision. This is a change for the Service to be responsible and proactively manage wolves in a way that, in the end, will preclude fatal take of wolves and livestock depredation."

The governor couldn't be reached for comment Monday.

Magagna agreed with Freudenthal, saying Monday it seemed "inevitable" the wolves would kill sheep.

"I was told that was not their policy," he said. "They said if (the wolves) started doing extensive killing they would remove them."

Jimenez said because wolves are still under federal protection, guidelines dictate wolves are first trapped and collared, and if they continue to be a problem, they are then killed.

"I'm unhappy with that policy that does not allow proactive work," Magagna said. "But once the sheep were killed, I would say that both Fish and Wildlife and Wildlife Services have been very responsive in getting the wolves removed."

Wolves are expected to be removed from federal protection as early as next year, but a Wyoming state management plan has not been approved by the federal government. The state is embroiled in a lawsuit so it can manage wolves as predators outside the two national parks and surrounding wilderness areas -- making the animals subject to killing on sight if they stray outside those areas.

Magagna said he is "a little bit nervous" knowing the male and pups were not caught.

"Hopefully we're through with this one," he said, "until wolves move into this area again."

E

We do have one thing that eats everything down to the dirt! Feral Horses, not wild, feral. There is no such thing as a wild one anymore. And yes they eat everything that is green, and run all the game off from the water holes. The horse to, was introduced!