Scientists protest proposed species rule
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich.- More than three dozen scientists have signed a letter to protest a new Bush administration interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, saying it jeopardizes animals such as wolves and grizzly bears.
The new reading of the law proposed by Interior Department Solicitor David Bernhardt would enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect animals and plants only where they are battling for survival. The agency wouldn’t have to protect them where they’re in good shape.
The proposed changes would “have real and profoundly detrimental impacts on the conservation of many species and the habitat upon which they depend,” said the letter, signed by 38 prominent wildlife biologists and environmental ethics specialists.
It [the letter] was being sent this week to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and leaders of congressional committees that oversee the department.
Read the rest of this Associated Press wire story By John Flesher by clicking here.
Filed under: Featured Articles, News, Wildlife Restoration
It will have a very positive effect on the people being targetted by enviro organizations. You won’t have the idiotic situation of arguing that we need more of a species because there is not enough food and living space for it.
Criteria for listing needs to be tightened up so we aren’t protecting mice. The delisting needs to be laid out at the beginning and not subject to lawsuits. This is a good baby step.
I agree that delisting criteria needs to be outlined from the beginning. I also feel that there are some animals that would never be safely delisted because of ongoing loss of food/habitat (the yellowstone grizley comes to mind). I dont think that a species requiring unending federal protection is an indicator that the ESA is a failure. This ruling is a huge mistake, however. For every controversial species that this act saves, there are 100 other less polarizing species that it saves. Under this rule, if climate change for example makes elk or pine trees or anything else in the lower 48 in danger of extinction, the federal government wouldnt have to do anything as long as they exist elsewhere (eg. Canada).
Also, you can blame environmental groups all you want for fighting to suppor the ESA. I think that the act has benefitted and is supported by the vast majority of average american people rather than only by a minority of “activists” as you seem to think. Marion, doesn’t it make you feel good that we now have safe populations of the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the american alligator, the whooping crane, the florida manatee, the florida key deer, and the southern sea otter? (I can go on and on)
By the way, who are you to play god and decide what species are worth saving? Why shouldnt a mouse be protected?
I don’t decide what species exist, circumstances and God decide that. It is a source of amusement to me that those who believe in evolution, not creation, are the ones most determined to play God and not allow any evolution to continue.
At some point we have to make choices, we cannot expend the resources to try to make every mouse, or flea “endangered” to protect someone’s property values or prevent home building.
Banning DDT did most of the saving of eagles, the only problem is people in 3rd world countries are dying of malaria without DDT. Is it playing God to choose eagles over humans?
Is saving a mouse worth more than building schools? We do not have unlimited resources in this country even though it is a rich country. We do have to make choices. Was 24 million to speed up wolves in livestock worth it? There were wolves in Montana, Yellowstone, Idaho, and seen in other places in Wyoming. A guy in Pinedale had one running thru his cows the second year of the introduction, and called FWS several times and they told him there were not wolves. Finally one day he roped it and put it in a horse trailer and called them. They of course started in about harassing an endangered species, etc. He reminded them it was their imagination, there were no wolves around. I don’t know what they ever did with it, probably took it back to the park, but needless to say Wyomingites love the story.
Steve, you mentioned the grizzlies. I have asked this question over and over, why would anyone feel we should have even more grizzlies because there isn’t enough food and living space for them? That just doesn’t seem logical to me, and no one can explain the logic to me, can you?
Humans destroying everything they touch has nothing to do with evolution. If we go by your logic that every animal that does not stand a chance against humans should not be saved then we would not have any animals. Why do we play god and manage elk and other game species across the country? God made them, why dont we just leave them to their own devices to survive without setting hunting limits? How about preserving the number of grizzlies we have now, and the habitat that they exist in now instead of forcing them and other wildlife to live in tiny areas that we think they should live in.
I am having trouble finding solid info on the subspecies of wolf that you say used to live in yellowstone other than a very general classification online. Can anyone provide me with any info on canis lupus occidentialis vs irremotus? What are the differences?
There isn’t a lot of information, because they simply did not have all of the science available at the time that they do now. Basically it was a much smaller wolf, but somewhat larger than a coyote. In fact coyotes were also called wolves frequently, which confuses the issue. They were called prairie wolves.
The introduced wolves are pretty much the arctic wolves that are considerable larger.
I’m not sure what has given you the idea that anyone wants to shrink grizzly territory, but neither do we want it expanded into downtown Cody.
Already the wolf territory that FWS proposed and Wyoming rejected, included the town of Cody, plus other towns. I must admit to being hard headed enough to object strenuously to making grizzlies and wolves protected inside of towns. I simply do not understand why you want them there. I’m sure you don’t want griz or wolves roaming around your neighborhood, but you seem determined to have them in towns here.
It is true there is private land already in grizzly territory and they have to abide by certain rules, which is also fine. I do not however feel that you or anyone else has the right to forbid them to use their land so the grizzly can expand more. You do however have the right to buy that land and leave it in it’s natural state.
Who wants wolves in downtown areas? That seems like a real stretch. How much smaller? 10%? 20%? Any smaller than that and they wouldnt be able to hunt elk and bison so they must have been pretty close to what we have in yellowstone now.
Current info on the taxonomy of wolves can be found at:
http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/intro.htm
Note that the current science indictes on six subspecies of wolves, and commonly understands that these varios subspecies overlapped and interbred freely. The argument that it was inappropriate to put wolves from Canada into Yellowstone is a red herring. The species of wolf roaming the Greater Yellowstone now is ecologically appropriate, and we should be happy to have them there.
There were so few wolves in Yellowstone historically, that there are no records that I can find of what their prey may have been. A number of early folks, including President T. Roosevelt in 1903, expressly stated there were no wolves.
They are only mentioned in context of the 14 killed during the 32 army years and the 122 killed during the years NPS offered a bounty, 80 of the later were pups. There were a total of 56 adult wolves killed during 42 years.
I actually cannot find a record in the early writings of bears or lions even killing buffalo. Poachers seem to have been the culprit. One of the worst was a man named Howell caught in the dead of winter on Astringent Creek in 1894.
Cougars are mentioned as preying on antelope and elk, but not buffalo, I know there is mention of “buffalo wolves” following buffs across the plains, but even there I don’t know if they actually prey on them or jsut took sick or injured animals that fell by the wayside.
I can’t even find mention of size in old writings, again because no one mentions seeing them, the closest is Mr. Evarts who became lost for 30 days and was starved to a skeleton. He reported hearing a wolf howl that last night before he was found.
If you love Yellowstone and can get a copy of the book “Battle Drums and Geysers, the Story of Lt. Gustavus Doane” read it. He was assigned to lead the Washburn expedition into Yellowstone, which was the first expedition, and the first written account. It gives you a look at the park before it was a park. wonderful, I can feel the excitement of that first glimpse of Old Faithful all over again, even though my first look at it was almost 65 years ago.
If you can find any reference to wolves in Yellowstoen in the early days, I would love to know the name fo the book, as you may be able to tell, I am really interested in old western history.
Another book dealing with wolves in Wyoming is called “Reasons for Decline of the Wildlife in the Big Horn Basin” by Calvin King, an early game biologist in Wyoming.
Ahhh, rats, I got so enthused about the books, I forgot, most of the early people who mention the wolves in Wyoming described them as being in the 50-75 pound range. I read somewhere that the wolves got bigger as they got closer to the arctic, and were usually white. Don’t know the authenticity of that, becaue I do not know where I read it.
That means nothing, most people where I live estimate 30 lb coyotes to be 70 lbs. How can you make difinitive statements about how the current wolves are so much larger when you admit yourself that you have no idea how large the “real” wolves were? 50-75 pounds would not make them big enough to kill anything larger than a mule deer (if that) it makes no sense that wolves in yellowstone would be that small…
I have to assume that the ranchers and wildlife people were relatively able to estimate weights even without helicopters & scales in those days.
I can only give you the information available. Since there is no written record that I have been able to find of anyone seeing wolves in Yellowstone, itself, in the early days, what I gave you is the best I can do. If you can find anything more accurate, I would really appreciate you sharing it. I’m always willing to learn.
Since I hear hunters overestimate weights (they should be as good at that as anyone) I am inclined to think that it is very difficult to eyeball a weight. I can’t find any solid onfo on the subspecies differences but i have read enough about wolves to know that what we have in yellowstone now is functionally and behaviorally what was there in the past.
Some interesting facts from the International Wolf Center:
“Adult female gray wolves in northern Minnesota weigh between 50 and 85 pounds, and adult males between 70 and 110 pounds. Gray wolves are larger in the northwestern United States, Canada, and Alaska where adult males weigh 85 to 115 pounds and occasionally reach 130 pounds.” (A “small” gray wolf male 70 to 110 pounds, a “large” 85-115 pounds with only an occasional larger. Wow!! Quite a difference!)….”Gray wolves can survive on about 2 1/2 pounds of food per wolf per day, but they require about 5 pounds per wolf per day to reproduce successfully…….The smaller adult female red wolf weighs 40 to 75 pounds, while males weigh from 50 to 85 pounds.” (Ahh! Perhaps a wolf such as these inhabited Yellowstone!!)….”Red wolves eat an average of 5 pounds of food per day.” (Oops! Guess my wife hasn’t been lying to me all these years, when she said that size doesn’t matter!!) “Wolves may travel 10 to 30 miles each day in search of food. Dispersing wolves, those leaving packs in search of their own mate, have been known to travel distances of 550 miles away form their home territory.” (Mmmm! Montana is only 321 miles from its most northerly border (Canada) to its most southern! Which borders which states again? Oh yes! Wyoming and Idaho! One, just one, generation and Canadian wolves are in Wyoming and Wyoming wolves are in Canada. Two or three generations and Canadian wolves are in Colorado and visa versa. All interbreeding!)
Yes, animals tend to get larger as you move north, but a few hundred miles doesn’t make a difference, especially not in an animal that travels as widely as wolves …..else why don’t we have all the “monster” elk in Montana?
Thanks for the info Frank. The wolf consumption amounts are fascinating. A small red wolf is the same size as a medium to large eastern coyote! Makes me wonder if wolf reintroduction to the northeast is even necessary if there is already an animal filling the wolf niche.
I am going to look into my crystal ball and predict that marion is going to shoot back with her “wolves were never historically in yellowstone” argument (havent heard that one in a while). I guess I have a 20% chance of being right since she seems to keep recycling the same five arguments over and over…
Steve, how can you say that, I went thru the whole litany just today of the wolves in Yellowstone, you didn’t even read it! sob sob, I’m devastated. All kidding aside, if you can find any information on wolves in Yellowstone prior to the introduction, please just tell me where.
Frank, it is funny, when FWS got DOW off the hook with that eastern Montana wolf that killed over 100 head of livestock over a year’s time. I pointed out about the traveling. They said it must be domestic becauseit was a mix of Great Lakes, Canadian, Alaskan, and lower 48. I and a number of others pointed out that the Canadian wolves in northern Montana could easily have Alaskan wolf mixed in, especially since that is supposed to be where the white wolves came from. Mixing with the Great Lakes wolves would be no problem, and our wolves are the lower 48 wolves.
I can say that because you keep using (I have seen you use the same evidence multiple times) historical accounts to somehow tell us that there were no or few wolves in yellowstone historically. I fail to see how these accounts prove anything. You could place anyone into a wilderness area for a month with no spotting scopes, access to radio-collared wolf locations, or helicopter monitoring and chances are they could not verify the presense of wolves or at the very least make any kinds of estimates of the number of wolves in an area. Put someone on foot or horseback and the job of accurately measuring wolf presense becomes that much harder.
But that does not negate the fact that it took 42 years to kill 56 adult wolves and 80 pups. They were getting a bounty for each one killed, so I suspect at least part of the pups were coyotes or german shepherds or whatever in order to get the bounty. Killing that number of wolves supposedly wiped out the entire Yellowstone population.
Instead of complaining because you don’t like to hear the only concrete evidence I have available, try to find different information if you can. The very same numbers are in Doug Smith’s book “The Wolves of Yellowstone” written in 1996.
The information is hardly concrete. Sure those numbers are in “the wolves of yellowstone”, but do they actually tell us anything about year to year wolf populations? Your “concrete evidence” creates more questions for me than anwsers. Were the majority of wolves wiped out by hunting before the bounties were initiated (and thus not counted)? Poisoning can result in many animals not found. Do these account for large numbers? Also, wolves are very intelligent, do wolves adapt to hunting pressure? Do they vacate and area that they associate with heavy hunting? If you can’t back up a point, don’t present it as fact. And don’t expect me to do your research for you… Am I to believe that this original “smaller” wolf subspecies had a density of 2 wolves per year in all of yellowstone??????
Better yet, show me the proof that indicates 1-200 wolves in Yellowstone is natural in any way shape or form. Show me any historical precedence for such a thing.
Marion, it not a numbers game. The number of wolves that Yellowstone (or anywhere else) can support should be determined by Nature, period. Wolves and their prey will reach a dynamic equilibrium, if humans will just leave them alone.
Marion,
I have noticed in a couple of your posts that you asked for some literature to maybe clear up some taxonomic questions. May I suggest the book “WOLVES, BEHAVIOR, ECOLOGY, CONSERVATION” edited by Mech and representing over 300 years of combined knowledge from around the world. Maybe pay particular attention to the Chapter on genetics. Also be aware that more study and information is coming available on that subject. Just a note of caution though, Once you read and understand the information in that book you may need to revise some of your oft repeated assertions.
Once more there is nothing natural about any part of the wolf reintroduction, none at all. There was nothing about the bringing them in and nothing natural about the management. Anyone who thinks numbers are not important, offer the suggestion that it would be no problem if disease or something else dropped the numbers to 100 overall. I’ll bet we would not hear any call for letting nature take it’s course, except from the beleaguered ranchers and hunters. What you really mean is there is no number that is too high, no matter how much pain and suffering it causes for humans…..well maybe if you happened to be one of the humans impacted.
Jeff, I am very much aware that a lot of subspecies, etc have been dropped, and of course added when it served the purpose. While the focus changed to allow one subspecies to be introduced to an area in place of another by the simple expedient of dropping a classification, adding them has allowed a field mouse to be listed and impact private wheat fields, prevent building homes, etc. there have been attempts, so far unsuccessful to add various subspecies of sage grouse so they can be listed here and there. Landowners and other private individuals are working within states to improve habitat, etc to prevent enviros from getting a tighter grip on our lives.
Marion,
I am talking about DNA fingerprinting. The same science that is used world wide in courts of law. It’s not simply adding or subtracting a subspicies. Although I strongly suspect I’m wasting my breath.
Marion, how did you like first day in the park?
You have to remember also that there was nothing natural about Man wiping out an entire keystone species from the Northern Rockies 100 years ago. Also there is nothing natural about “management” period. You are right, returning wolves was not natural either…but there simply is no way to go back in time and undo what was done. Everything that has happened since reintroduction, however, has been natural. The population in the park (and elsewhere) increased, and the introduction was a success, because the habitat and prey base were adequate.
Something that I find interesting about these numbers. I’m not trying to throw any significance into them….I simply find them interesting; perhaps fascinating. One hundred (or so) years ago, a total of 136 wolves were documented as being removed from Yellowstone. The number of wolves in the park at the end of 2006: 136 wolves! Historically the number of animals in the Northern Elk Herd: average around 7,000. The last count of the Northern Elk Herd: right about 7,000! As I said, I’m not trying to find some magical significance here; and I know that the wolves were removed over a period of years. I also realize that, as Steve pointed out, many more wolves may have been removed illegally….every other animal in the park was poached in those early days, why not wolves? Also thousands of wolves were documented having been slaughtered in Montana and Wyoming, and knowing how widely wolves travel…. Still, I can’t help but find these numbers fascinating!
Ahh, yes DNA. DNA was used to determine that the wolf that killed over a hundred head of livestock in eastern Montana. FWS stated that the DNA showed that the wolf had genes from Alaskan wolves, Canadian wolves, Great Lakes wolves, and Lower 48 wolves, (since Red wolves, nor Mexican Greys were mentioned, one would assume that would be the Rocky Mountain introduced wolves). Since it would be conceivable that the Rocky Mountain wolves introcuced, or traveled naturally would have both Canadian and Alaskan genes, and certainly traveling between the Great Lakes and the Rockies would be anticipated since there are probably 5-7000 of them spread out between the areas.
All of that lovely DNA got DOW off the hook and left the owners of the livestock killed twisting in the wind.
Marion,
I have seen you yammer on about this domestic wolf a time or two so I took the liberty of looking up the information on Montana’s official FWP website. The animal in question was determined to be a human bred animal by two independent labs. One was the National Forensics Lab in Ashland Oregon, the other was the UCLA Department of Evolutionary Biology. Both reports determined that DNA was present from the great lakes region, the lower 48, and Alaska. “The hodgepodge of DNA found does not occur naturally in wild wolves in North America.” If you need further edification go to the site mentioned above. It’s explained to the lowest common denominator.
Marion, what hunters are beleaguered? I would agree that they could be beleaguered if they actually had to hunt for their food but they are doing it for fun… Jeff, I am sure that you will be accused of being an “activist” for disproving Marion’s failed points with ::gasp:: scientific evidence. The beautiful thing about hard data such as DNA evidence is that it can’t get clouded by human emotion. Taq polymerase, the enzyme making DNA replication possible was discovered in yellowstone hot springs and then used to exhonerate wolves in livestock deaths. Maybe the reintroduction was destiny… Spooky, right marion?
I’ll buy it if you can tell me what makes up the “lower 48″ wolf population. Where are the wolves located other than the Great Lakes, the Rocky Mountain wolves, the Mexican wolves (really interesting article and photos in the Summer issue of Range Magazine), and the Red Wolves in the south?
Are you saying they know the DNA of every single wolf in the US? Or that not a single wolf imported from Canada could have Alaskan DNA?
Wolves have been reported in the Dakotas, are they from the Rockies, Canada, or the Great Lakes? How much money would you want to bet on any ONE of the three and against more than one of those locations? The ranchers are forced to bet thousands.
Perhaps you prefer not to believe it, but many families meat supply comes from wild game. The fewer permits that are available, the more these families are impacted. My sons and their families are among those that primarily eat game, so I know how important it is.
Last year WY G&F gave away thousands of pounds of elk meat from the elk killed in the test and destroy brucellosis program. They ran out of meat at each location within minutes, because of the demand. My granddaughter and her family were among those too late, even though they were in line with hundreds of others when the time started. Fortunately her Dad shares with them and they too hunt for their young family.
Maybe the sport hunters should get the last shot at permits then so the peopel who really need them can get them first.
Marion,
The point is that this domestic animal was bred by HUMANS. Where the breeding animals came from is a moot point. There are any number of places that domestic wolves can be had. But again the point is is that this animal was a domestic animal bred by humans. It was not a naturally dispersing wolf from any wild wolf populations. If you want more specific data I’m sure that the national lab in Ashland has a phone #. Maybe that is a place you could start. As far as the loss of livestock that was probably a significant loss but dogs of all types have been killing sheep for eons and still are. Why isn’t that a big news flash?
They decided that it was domestically bred based on DNA that supposedly could not happen in the wild. Like much of the science that has been a part of this great experiment with people’s lives and property, the validity is in the eye of the beholder. It had to be protected when someone “not authorized” had it in their sights ready to kill, but son of a gun, nope, not one of ours when it is actually killed. With 5-10,000 wolves running loose in this country and another 60,000 or so north of us, we are to believe they know how the genes came together?
Nothing has changed from the days the government dealt with the Indians. Whoever has the money and the power is able to make the government go back on their word. Enviros are jsut like the gold seekers and settlers that demanded the right to take what someone else had, treaties or agreements be hanged.
These horrible creatures! Killing everything in sight! Cutting down woods that have stood for over a thousand years. Burning down others through their carelessness. Paving over miles upon miles of pristine beauty, chasing away the game that was once our food and replacing it with a foreign, invasive species. Then killing our babies for daring to make the mistake of trying to eat. Killing us even when we hid in the deepest wilderness, even when the only contact we ever had with them was on the day they killed us. Building huge mechanical monsters that dig deep into mother earth, screaming and cranking 24 hours a day seven days a week. Building homes and towns deeper and deeper into the wilderness, shrinking our land to a minuscule fraction of what it once was. First, legend says, there were only a few. Then hundreds, thousands and millions. And still they come. When will it stop! When will it stop! All we want is to live in peace! All we want is a place to raise our babies.
We don’t want to run the world. All we want is a small slice of it. Oh, the pain! The pain! My poor baby! Shot by some coward flying in some screaming monster in the sky! Run! Run!
I wonder what wolves (and other wildlife) think about the over 300 million PEOPLE “running loose” trying to play God in this country?
Are you seriously suggesting that the National Forensics Lab in Ashland Oregon and the UCLA Department of Evolutionary Biology are incapable of determining the genetics of an animal? I would ask, in good spirits of course, “Were you on the O.J. jury?”
So Marion if you were on a jury for someone accused of a major crime such as murder, sexual assault, vehicular homicide and all the evidence pointed to the individual on trial to be guilty….. except a DNA profile of the individual says that it could not be him. What way are you going to vote? Or conversely you have a friend or relative that that has been in prison for years and all the evidence presented at the trial indicates guilty, but then some evidence is run through a DNA profile and shows that your friend/relative is innocent, is the validity then in the eye of the beholder?
I would have to question DNA that said it came from the “lower 48″ for sure. Just tell me exactly what wolves are included in the “lower 48″. Simple.
By the way, there was no doubt that the wolf was guilty of the killings, he was finally killed in the act. The question was whether the wolf belonged to FWS & the enviros or not. I only know of 4 “lower 48″ wolf populations, the Rocky Mountain wolves, the Great Lake wolves, the Mexican Grey wolves, and the Red wolf. I suppose it is possible that some of the remnant population of native wolves could have been present, and given an odd DNA, which might be what the mean by “lower 48″. The first 2 were already mentioned (Great Lakes & Canadian-Alsakan), and they would be the most likely “lower 48″.
Marion Marion marion, I did not write the report. Your question needs to be posed to the labs that did the testing. They have phone #s. Once again the point is is that domestic wolf was HUMAN BRED. It was born in someones house or backyard, raised as a domestic aniamal and for whatever reason escaped or was let loose into Eastren Montana. What is so diffacult to comprehend about that.
Aren’t all dogs “domestic wolves”? Marion, i bet if the DNA evidence showed that it was a pure bred yellowstone wolf you would be the biggest cheerleader in the world for the accuracy of genetic evidence. I can read you like a book…
There is no such thing as a “pure bred Yellowstone wolf”, the only chance to have found one was to have tried to check out those seen before the introduction. It was evidently more important to have a lotta wolves than to have found another supposedly extinct species alive and well in Wyoming. Maybe it would have been a Canadian wolf, maybe it would have been a Great Lakes wolf, but now we will never know.
Those wolves now in Yellowstone are the Canadian wolves that may be also bred with Alaskan wolves, at least so Canadians claim. This is the only wolf I know of them checking DNA on, but that would have been a pretty big bill for DOW since there were over a hundred confirmed kills at stake.
Yep, I am suspicious of motives in the whole thing, it usually pays to be sceptical when a lot of money is involved.
Marion Marion Marion,
DNA samples were taken of all the wolves that were re-introduced in both Idaho and Wyoming. All are on file at both Ashland and UCLA. Ashland maintains the biggest data base of Wolf, Wolf Hybrid, and candid samples in the world with 1000+ separate samples. UCLA is currently mapping the family trees of all the reintroduced wolves and I understand are getting close to releasing that. Being skeptical is one thing, deliberate ignorance is quite another. You fall in the second category.
The Montana population was a natural migration and are not DNA’d, in addition to that there was a naturally occuring population of at least one, and in all likelihood more than one. It was photographed feeding on a carcass of an elk that may have been killed by bears, died, or taken down by more than one wolf. Was it a “lower 48″ wolf, did it survive, did others? We know FWS lost packs that were collared a couple of times despite collars, one a 22 pack was on the Elk Refuge, and they couldn’t fnd it! The other was lost for over a year, and as Ralph speculated that those nasty oufitters had gotten into remote country and killed them, lo and behold they showed up.
If you think all of this means I don’t trust enviros and the FWS, you are 100% right. This whole thing has been lies, coverups, etc from the beginning. We were told 30/300 wolves, now we’re told that was only the beginning, they must have many times that. There is NO number that is enough. I do not believe there is any number that will allow the wolves to be delsited without a fight from enviros. I truly believe the whole goal is control of all of the land by environmental groups, and that includes private land.
Marion, you are starting to sound like a broken record. How many times can you say the same thing over and over without backing it up? Show me some proof that wolves were alive and well in wyoming before reintroduction (heresay and opinion are not proof)! If not, stop wasting everyone’s time.
Here is a link to the one killed in 93:
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=2156
and:
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=2146
and:
http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers/viewnews.cfm?ID=648
this talks about both the photographed and killed animals:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976972-1,00.html
This link provides a lot more information on the wolf killed outside of Yellowstone.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wp1fZIwCl4AC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=wolflike+killed+wyoming&source=web&ots=dZAs4nei07&sig=tmWempVbeZw8fwuUuu529A90iqE#PPA212,M1
As you can see there was a lot of parsing and hem hawing so they could bring in the Canadian wolves. I think it is also pretty clear why we don’t have much confidence in the honesty of any of those involved in the whole thing.
Read through it, tells me that there were wanderers before reintroduction but does not prove that there was a viable breeding population. Wolves wander into maine as well, but the obstacles for them to get there make recolonization almost impossible.
Nor does it prove a viable population did not exist. Nor can we ever go back and find out if there was indeed a remnant of the original population. There was definitely something different about that wolf that was killed, but the power and the money was too important to FWS biologists and environmental groups to allow time to find out. Something very important may have been lost for all time, that is a tragedy that cannot ever be fixed. What was the big hurry? There was nothing to gain by rushing the project, at least not to Yellowstone itself.
“These previous resident wolves….had escaped detection by researchers for twenty years by employing some highly unusual behaviors, including refusing to howl, not traveling in packs, and steering clear of roads and trails. In truth biologists have been remarkably successful detecting wolf packs in locations around the world. Yet beginning with a landmark study by biologist John Weaver in the mid 1970’s, no one ever managed to find a viable population of wolves in greater Yellowstone. While arguments of stealth wolf packs never made much legal headway” (in stopping reintroduction), “in the end it was the wolves themselves who settled the matter. No one, after all, is better at finding wolves than other wolves. When our reintroduced animals dispersed-all of them, by the way, wearing radio collars-traveling alone across hundreds of miles for months at a time, often on the lookout for potential mates, not a single one ever managed to hook up with an un-collared, non reintroduced wolf”……..Douglas W. Smith “Decade of the Wolf” copyright 2005, Douglas Smith and Gary Ferguson.
Goodnight! Put it to bed! There was no viable population of wolves remaining in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, nor had a viable population migrated there, prior to the re-introduction. You can discuss that issue until you are blue in the face…..it has been settled.
No it was NOT settled, it was DECLARED settled by enviros who wanted control at he expense of a potential remnant population of native wolves, but not ever proven one way or another, and never will be. Those invested in the introduction and all that it included were the ones that could not find any evidence of pre existing wolves. They were able to just blow off reports by the hundreds, by simply refusing to investigate. Actually one of thier remnant offspring may be what the “lower 48″ breeding consisted of.
By the way isn’t hiding supposed to be what wolves are all about? Weren’t they supposed to be shy and secretive? But enviros wanted those that pose for photos, make Bob Landis rich, and beg for food.
Just like you blow off evidence that contradicts you? You don’t find it strange that the original radiocollared wolves didnt find the “native” wolves immediately and kill them upon release? Does it seem strange to you that the “native” wolves never howled at the reintroduced wolves when they were in their pens? How do you think all of these wolves hid in one of the most “watched” areas in the world? I think any animal would have a hard time hiding in yellowstone. What are you talking about wolves posing for photos? Your arguments keep getting more bizaar… Yellowstone draws thousands of people with professional grade photographic equipment per year to photograph all animals, not just wolves. Does it surprise you that people are getting amazing photos of wolves, bear, elk etc? I am sure if the “real” wolves existed there, people would still flock to yellowstone to photograph them.
Does it make you feel comfortable to label the other side “enviros”? By calling us a name does it help you to discount everything that you read on here? Hunters want to preserve the land as well from all forms of development. Does that make them “greenies” or “enviros”? There is a label for the anti-science anti-wildlife set too… but we are confident enough in our arguments that we don’t have to resort to that. (redneck is what I was shooting at)
First let me say, I’m proud to be a redneck and don’t consider it bad at all. Second, I suspect the introduced wolves did kill off whatever wolves they came across, as a matter of fact.
As for howling I go to the Park several times every year, and only have heard them once, even though I have seen wolves more often, usually singles. Howling or not, whether there were wolves or not is not the question, there is proof that there were. The problem for the folks living here is that their was no concern for the possibility of finding the true remnant Yellowstone wolf. They wanted LOTS of wolves and that is what they were going to have. And that is what they do have, no matter what the cost.
By the way when they have lost the packs of wolves, they neither heard them howling, nor picked up their radio collars, and in both cases they were packs over 20 animals. What chance would people have of hearing 3 or 4 animals?
I will admit there were undoubtedly not anywhere as many wolves in Yellowstone as there are right now. But that is the case historically too. and that makes sense if you think of it, and the wolves were indeed smaller wolves. There is a recorded population of both black and grizzly bears frequently seen by early explorers, as well as enough lions that they were heard frequently. Their screams is one thing mentioned over and over again in the journals that were kept on the Washburn expedition. In fact President Theodore Roosevelt recorded seeing one eating it’s kill. How often are lions heard now, even though we know they are there? I have never heard one there or in Rocky Mountain NP, have you? I think that is because there aren’t as many as there were in the early days, and I suspect that is why so few wolves.
We are bitter because no consideration was given to anything or any fact except wolves and those who would benefit by their presence. The impact on prey species, elk especially, in 11 years has been very dramatic and much higher than anyone predicted. The calf survival is extremely low, which means the herds are getting older and older. They cannot survive long term if there is no calf replacement.
The impact on livestock has also been much higher, and much more difficult to “prove”. On top of that reimbursement is sometimes taking years to be paid, even when “confirmed”. And of course the numbers are much higher, but there still aren’t enough, and of course we are not to be trusted.
I know, I’ve said all of this before, and it doesn’t matter because folks who don’t live here want more wolves, and we are greedy to object.
Marion,
after spending a little time going over some historical accounts about wolves in Yellowstone a few patterns begin to appear. The main thing that comes out is that there were none or very few reports of wolf sitings(none confirmed) in the park or Idaho until Canada, in Alberta and British Canada, started to ease up on there predator control in the southern portions of those states, starting in the late 1960s. Then there started to be more reports of wolf activity in the seventies including the first documented pack , the Magic Pack, in Glacier NP.(By the way this pack had blood samples taken) As wolves started to disperse out of Canada in to Montana a few packs started to form including the nine mile pack just north of Missoula. It was from this pack that most dispersers are believed to be migrating into YNP and Idaho prior to re-introduction. In Idaho it is a documented fact that reintroduced wolves met up and formed one of the first packs in the Bear Valley area with some resident wolves,Probably original dispersers from Canada via Montana. The “teton wolf” was genotyped as being directly related to the nine mile pack and the Magic Pack (there’s that pesky DNA again) on the Maternal side. Just for the record there has never been a “Yellowstone wolf” subspecies, and the wolves that are now, happily, once more roaming around YNP are no larger than or otherwise different than what was historically present.
At least you are admitting that there was never a population in YNP that needed to be replaced. That brings up the question of why it was deemed necessary to truck in so many wolves. the answer of course, IMHO, is to eliminate hunting and ranching, which certain groups hate.
I have heard both wolves and coyotes howl in yellowstone on many occasions. Perhaps you are going at the wrong time of year? Coyotes are much smaller than wolves and travel in small groups but I have heard them. I think that when the “mute wolf” is classified it shoudl be named after you.
Marion,
I am, of course, referring to that point in history where the Government and livestock industry had all but exterminated all predators, including wolves, in the inter mountain west forward to the present era. Please re- r e a d the last sentence of my previous post. once again there is a difference between being skeptical and deliberate ignorance. You fall into the second category.
This has been many of my comments on another wolf advocates website that the advocates have always wanted to remove livestock and ranching and hunting from public lands. Why? They state that it is to improve wildlife habitat so their will be more wolves and more wildlife. However, this can never happen as there are already more wolves out there then what the current habitat we have can support. Removing wolves livestock, ranching, and hunting will only cause the current population of wolves to remain as they are, which is another wolf. No more, no less. However, I guess I would be in support of removing livestock from public lands if the wolf advocates would support open hunting of wolves.
Wolfen
Surly you realize that among any group of people you are going to have a full spectrum of thinking on the subject matter at hand. I no more believe Marion represents the entire ANTI sentiment than you believe I represent the entire PRO sentiment. You may notice that I never use that all inclusive “we” when I post. In addition the amount of available habitat is probably open to debate as there is surly areas in Colorado, Utah, Washington, and Oregon that could and maybe should be repopulated.
“Ours is the truth………. and ours is also the burden of proof. We are the minority, the followers of lies being the majority, and we gladly accept our burden, if in the end that acceptance means ridding the world of the foul half-truths…..”
There will always be those who will ignore scientific evidence, no matter how compelling that evidence may be. There will be those who will insist that the moon landing was faked; filmed on a sound stage at Norton Air Force base in San Bernardino, Ca. That God magically “plopped” Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden 2000 years ago, despite overwhelming evidence of creatures that roamed the earth millions of years before, and the slow evolution of Man. Those who will stick their collective heads in the ground and ignore the mounting evidence of Man caused global warming. Why? Because Al Gore uses a lot of energy! Or because it was cold yesterday! Those who will insist that study after study, by scientists who had been successful locating remnant populations of wolves and other animals in other areas of the globe, that failed to turn up any evidence of a viable wolf population in the GYE must have been faked by left-wing environmental wackos who’s entire mission in life is driving ranchers out of business, causing those few folks who rely on hunting to feed their families to starve to death (maybe they should take a bath, get a haircut, brush their teeth, put on their Sunday best and get a job, so that they can afford to go to the grocery store like the rest of us?!) and giving Bob Landis something to film! Mr. Landis, BTW, is an extremely talented filmmaker who could make a very good living if he never saw a wolf. Those who will claim that wolves never existed in Yellowstone because the Washburn Expedition didn’t mention them howling! (Did it ever occur that the howling of wolves was so common across the country in those days that it wasn’t worth mentioning, whereas the screaming of mountain lions was?) Louis and Clark certainly mentioned wolves; packs following the great herds of ungulates everywhere (Louis and Clark must have been “enviros”). Records indicate thousands of wolves killed in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho; but of course those wolves stayed clear of what would later become Yellowstone National Park! Just as the “Canadian wolves” never crossed the imaginary line that would later become the Canada/US boundary!
Such folks will never be convinced.
The quote at the top is from “The Flat Earth Society”
OK, since I am old and dumb, let’s see if I can get this straight.
1. The Washburn expedition did not mention wolves or howling because there were so many, that they considered it to be commonplace. (Why did President Roosevelt state in 1903 that there were no wolves in Yellowstone?)
2. There were no wolves in Yellowstone prior to the introduction because only sightings were reported, not howling (I don’t know if that is true or whether howling reports were ignored like sighting reports, or blown off as coyotes).
3. The documented sightings of wolves just prior to the introduction was insignificant because…because…becasue, well because those who had the say said it was insignificant. The one killed was/was not a wolf…depending on the pint to be proved, at any rate it was not the “right kind of wolf”, nor were there enough.
4. People in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana deserve to be punished with every problem that wolves can cause because it must be their fault there are no wolves in the US, since NPS killed 56 adult wolves and 80 pups over a 42 year period.
5. 1300 wolves are not enough.
Have I got it straight?
Actually the wolves killed by ranchers were after YNP had been delcared a park.
1. Why did President Roosevelt say in 1903 that there were no wolves in Yellowstone? Good question since, as you state over and over, 136 wolves were killed in 42 years ending with the last one recorded in 1926. I’d say that Mr. Roosevelt was obviously mistaken, wouldn’t you?
2. Are you a birder? Are you aware that if a rare species is sighted that it must be verified by at least two VERY EXPERIENCED birders before even being considered valid. Not merely glimpsed by some guy out hunting or cruising down the highway. The experts, the researchers, the biologists (not to mention the reintroduced wolves) couldn’t find any. There are reports, photographs and video of “Bigfoot” in the Pacific North West all of the time! Funny how legitimate researchers can’t find any sign of them. UFO’s are spotted by thousands of people, yet legitimate researchers have failed to turn up any “little green men”.
Also, NO ONE ever said that there weren’t ANY wolves in Yellowstone prior to re-introduction. There may well have been an occasional disperser passing through desperately seeking a mate. 3-4 wolves over a period of 68 years does not constitute a VIABLE POPULATION.
3. The wolves spotted just prior to reintroduction were insignificant because..over twenty years of research BY LEGITIMATE researchers had failed to turn up a VIABLE population. If these sightings by inexperienced individuals (in an atmosphere where certain individuals were desperate and willing to say or do anything to stop re-introduction BTW) turned out to be true, one or two individuals still did not constitute a VIABLE, SUSTAINABLE population.
4. Come on! I live in Montana. I have many, many friends (some are ranchers) who live in Montana, and not one has ever expressed to me a feeling that residents of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho are being “punished”. Even some of my most adamant wolf-hating friends understand why wolves were re-introduced here. They may disagree with it. Some would even like to take a shotgun to all of them (we agree not to talk about wolves), but none has ever expressed to me that they don’t believe that wolves were ever here or that they personally are being persecuted. Many are glad that wolves were re-introduced and are proud to live in the last intact ecosystem in the lower forty eight (even some of the ranchers (gasp!!). I think that the whole “persecuted, us against them….they’re out to get us” mentality must be a Wyoming thing. In reality, the federal government and private conservation groups such as Defenders of Wildlife have bent over backwards to assist ranchers. In 2006 more wolves were controlled (killed) in Montana than cows killed by wolves. Defenders pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s not a perfect system, but hey!, nobody HAS to pay anybody anything!
5. 1300 wolves are not enough? I don’t know. 7,000 elk in the northern range aren’t enough? That’s a question that should be answered by the carrying capacity of the land. Not by politicians. Not by you. Not by me.
Maybe the ranchers had so many wolves to kill because the wolves were fleeing the killing fields of Yellowstone National Park? Running from the game rich park and her greedy bounty hunters, they may have been driven into the surrounding ranch lands. You may well have answered your own question regarding why so few were killed in the park. One thing is indisputable: wolves were once the single most numerous predator in North America, numbering over twenty million coast to coast. Is 1300 enough? I really don’t know.
Marion,
I DID NOT say you were Old. (;>}
Frank,
Do not get me started on the Defenders of Wildlife issue. For one, I know many ranchers and most of them do not get compensated the full amount that the market demands. Also, their are many more that are not compensated because as you state, the so called wolf scientists could not come to any definite conclusion that it was killed by a wolf. However, more livestock have been lost since wolves have been reintroduced. Hmmm! Though there is no solid evidence of a wolf kill, it it highly probably since before wolves ranchers did not loose the significant amount as they are now.
Lastly, and I wish I could remember the article, Defenders of Wildlife only got involved in the compensation plan for one reason. DOW is doing all they can to sufficiently give the public the image that DOW is definitely concerned about the rancher, his livelihood, etc. etc. In reality, it is a cover up to allow the wolves to establish resident populations in cattle/livestock areas so the wolf advocates will fulfill their political agenda. It never was about the cattle/livestock owner and his livelihood. It is all about establishing populations of wolves as quickly as possible in all areas possible, regardless of livestock conflicts. Politically, DOW is attempting to come out smelling like a rose while those livestock owners come out smelling like ******.
Here is one link that reveals DOWs real intent…..to remove livestock and ranching practices for restoration of wildlife. And to top it off, they are very sneaky in that they do not reveal where their funding comes from. Hmmm. I am all for wildlife but could not contribut to an organization that hides their finances. I think sportsmen groups do more for the restoration and preservation of ungulates than the DOW.
http://www.undueinfluence.com/defender.htm
The money paid out by DOW is donated by individuals, such as myself, and I think that most of those individuals would like to know that the money is used to compensate for wolf kills; not coyote kills, dog kills or just a calf that comes up “missing” because its owner failed to keep track of his property. Livestock loses to wolves amount to about one half of one percent of loses (even using liberal figures). Yes I know that some individuals have been hit harder than others. I also know that entire wolf packs have been wiped out for killing a couple of calves! 1300 wolves in the northern Rockies. How many cows? I have said before that I would like to see more money go to help those ranchers who ARE hit harder. We should be doing everything we can to help those ranchers and stop throwing thousands of dollars into “controlling” wolves. Non lethal answers are out there. Many are used around the world where ranchers co-exist with wolves. Even in the Great Lakes, they have more wolves and fewer problems. For some reason it seems that ranchers in the Northern Rockies seem to throw up their hands and say, “We can’t outsmart the wolves! The wolves are smarter than we are! All we can do is kill them!” A cowboy, buckaroo attitude left over from the 1800’s. You will never eliminate depredation with any means, lethal or non lethal; but you can REDUCE IT dramatically without killing very many wolves (there will always be a few “hard cases”).
As for compensation. Some are under compensated. Some are over compensated. DOW compensates at FULL FALL PRICES. Not bad for a calf killed in the Spring. Don’t have to feed or care for it all Summer! As I said, it is NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM. But again, NOBODY HAS TO COMPENSATE ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING. Depredation is part of the COST OF DOING BUSINESS. Just as shoplifting is part of the COST OF DOING BUSINESS for store owners. COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS are and should be past on to consumers.
Of course DOW isn’t concerned about ranchers. They are concerned about wolves. That is why they are called Defenders of Wildlife, not Defenders of Ranchers.
I appreciate your remarks however, they are highly inflated. I live in ranching territory in Idaho and the ranchers have been hit hard. And they have not been nearly compensated at fall prices but have been undercompensated. Of all the ranchers I know none have ever been overcompensated. And that is a personal judgement anyway. The wolves may have killed one of their price calves from a cow that they bought for thousands of dollars because of her genetics, etc. It becomes more personal if it is your own property but how can you place judgement and say they have been adequately or overly compensated. I think the ranchers would just soon not have the compensation system if they could take matters in their own hands.
On another note, You are correct that no one has to compensate livestock owners. It is a cost of doing business. Ranchers business until 1995 did not have to deal with any extra costs placed unwantedly by the environmentalists so their losses are greater that before 1995 when the wolves were re-introduced. Since this introduction is a cost of doing business, that was basically forced upon hunters and ranchers, then they should be compensated at much higher value then fall prices. This would obviously cause the ranchers to love the wolf advocates because they get paid more than market value and this would be an added benefit for the wolf advocate as this is their whole mission to have as many wolves as possible. Feed the cattle, have as many wolves as possible, compensate the rancher at higher than market value, then wildlife services would not have to waste all that money on killing wolves that have depredated on livestock.
Remember the link I sent in a previous thread. It said that DOW was not originally began as an anti ranching group against predator control. So you cannot support both DOW and livestock ranching.
One more thing. I looked up the 2005 numbers, DOW accepted approximately 100,000 worth of “confirmed” kills. How much of that they actually paid, evidently they are or were way behind in payments. One couple I talked to in Riverton, had been waiting then for almost 3, yes THREE years for payment on compensated kills.
A Wyoming newspaper interviewed a spokesman for DOW and they said they had jsut been too busy. What did they take in in donations in 2005? 21 million +.
How many wolf introduction supporters have ever offered to go help dig graves for all of the cattle, sheep, horses, and other livestock killed by wolves? That is quite a chore, and digging holes might give you a different perspective on how wonderful wolves are, especially as you had to look at traumatized bodies as you dug. By the way, extreme trauma is how they confirm wolf kills. Of course calves, lambs and other small animals are often carried off or completely consumed, so tough luck guys. We can’t confirm there was a kill just because the corral is covered with blood and full of wolf tracks, and you have a couple of calves missing.
Marion, at what point do ranchers need to start blaming themselves if they have problems? Maybe if someone can’t cope with a couple percent wolf losses, a couple percent weather losses, a few percent disease losses etc. they should be in a different business… My father owned a business and his business lived or died based on how well he ran it and coped with many factors that negatively impacted it. Also, if there are enough like minded people like yourself, why don’t they form their own fund to pay for wolf kills? Is it because you like to complain without offering solutions? At a certain point people need to stop whining about how the whole world is against them. Why do the enviros have to donate to a fund that they get no credit for and get criticized for? If you think you can do better than defenders of wildlife, by all means get up off your but and try. And they fund a lot more than compensation programs, so don’t throw how much money they took in last year at me.
Another thing, why do you keep bringing up this “digging graves”? Both sides could try to bolster thier argument by trying to use emotion. Do you feel bad for wolves and coyotes that suffer from poison, trapping, shooting etc. so that livestock can survive? Do you value all life or just those that you can make a buck off of?
Steve,
I believe a very good idea would be to double the grazing allotment fees, take that extra money and invest it and then use that to pay ranchers for livestock losses. I believe that over a relatively short period of time with a wise investment strategy, all livestock losses could be compensated regardless of the reason. Also as an added benefit, the public lands rancher would become more self-sufficient and maybe move away from the welfare lifestyle currently enjoyed.
…… also would be able to fund repair of livestock damage done to public lands, thereby compensating the “public” for damage to “public lands.”
Steve,
Maybe you ought to think somewhat before your write. You can say all you want about DOW but they started out and still are an anti-ranching group which is why I will never/ever support them. My dollars are better spent wiht sportmens groups who manage our ungulate herds better than DOW ever did.
Ranchers have to be businessman just like your dad but even moreso. The also have to be excellent at financial management, resource management, market management, etc. During good years they have to save all they can to prepare for the lean years when demand for beef is low and the prices are low. This is highly unpredictable from year to year unlike most traditional businesses in a city.
First, not knowing your dad’s business, I will bet that you can hardly compare the two. Let me expain. Livestock producers are at the mercy of mother nature. Mother nature will make or break them as mother nature governs moisture to water crops of corn, grain, alfalfa that the livestock eat. It also sets the stage for how abundant forage is on the public land. Did you also know that the demand that is making the news about corn based ethanol is driving the prices of beef up. So your beef in the store is going to cost you more.
Second, they are somewhat at the mercy of the government. The Feds make the rules along the lines of importation/exportation which drives the price of cattle/sheep. You know, import alot of cattle from Canada, or elsewhere and the price drops. This hardly occurs in a traditional business.
Third, when you talk about a loss of 2-3 % from depredation this is on top of the already few percent they had experienced before 1995. Since wolf reintroduction depredation loss is more along the lines of 5% and I would bet that is an average. Since their whole livelihood depends on the weather, government, etc. many ranchers cannot afford any more additional losses and particularly those that had been forced upon them without them having any recourse. Yes, I know that you will talk about DOWs compensation, which by the way is marginal and remember it is a cover up to DOWs real intentions. That is not to help the rancher.
Better yet, since the wolf advocates are the ones who pushed for this reintroduction, you folks ought to be the ones out there patroling the public lands and interferring with the wolves to make sure that livestock depredations do not occur. It is your guys program so you should manage it like a business from the wolf advocates point of view and keep these depredations from happening. I know, most wolf advocates will say the rancher needs to spend more time on the range or hire a full time range rider but once again you guys made the wolf reintroduction happen and not the rancher. You should pay for the full-time range rider. He did not want it so you guys should be out there patrolling the public lands diligently.
One last note. You folks wanted the wolves, ranchers did not. Therefore, they are entitled to whine about the wolves as much as they feel the need. It is there livestock losses at hand. On the other hand you guys are not entitled to whine about the rancher and him not taking more diligence in patrolling his livestock, proposing non lethal means of diffusing wolf livestock interactions. It is not his program and was forced upon them. They can and do have a right to whine. You do not!
I doubt that your dads business is at the mery of the weather, government regulation and
MARION: I can’t believe you haven’t gotten an answer to your above query:
:::::::::::::::::
“I have asked this question over and over, why would anyone feel we should have even more grizzlies because there isn’t enough food and living space for them? That just doesn’t seem logical to me, and no one can explain the logic to me, can you?”
:::::::::::::::::
If you frame the question as you have above (”the idiotic situation of arguing that we need more of a species because there is not enough food and living space for it.”), yes, it does sound absurd.
But back up a minute: Is anyone saying, “the solution to declining habitat quality is to have more animals”?
I don’t think anyone is putting it that way, are they? I think maybe the arguments have kind of gotten mixed up, in part due to some folks getting way out of their depth on topics like population viability.
But no one is saying, “the cure for declining habitat is to cram more animals into it.”
Instead, I think you’re probably seeing a mix of arguments, but I think the core logic is something like this:
We want a large population of grizzlies, maybe as many as a few thousand total. That few thousand DOES NOT need to be crammed into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, but could be composed of grizzlies spread out over western Montana, central Idaho, the Canadian Rockies, and the GYE, with low densities of bears forming demographic connections in between.
Why would we want this? Because it is evident, from the field of population viability analysis that such populations have a very low risk of disappearing, and also may retain what we call “evolutionary potential” (ie., they function naturally enough and have a broad enough diversity of alleles that they continue to evolve in response to their environment, rather than being a tiny population whose traits are largely selected by humans).
Let me stop right there and point out the VALUE PREFERENCES that run through what I just wrote. The degree to which we subjectively value Yellowstone grizzlies is our basis for deciding how much risk of them disappearing we’re willing to tolerate.
IF you value grizzlies a lot, then you want to minimize the risk that this population will disappear. IF you value diversity within a species and want it to maintain evolutionary potential, then you may want the population to be quite large.
It is critically important that we acknowledge the role our values are playing in these debates, rather than pretending that one side is following “Science,” and the other side is bad and greedy.
So, some people want big populations of grizzlies because (if I can ascribe my own motives to them) they value them a lot and want to minimize risk of extinction.
By this logic, simply deciding to make do with a smaller population of grizzlies that could make a living on the diminished habitat inside some imaginary line is not an option.
Of course, one could argue that we should then try to “pump up” the carrying capacity inside the imaginary line by putting out food for the bears (John Craighead suggests that in his 1995 magnum opus — he actually argues for feeding them garbage again).
Why not do that? Well, we get right back to values again. We have a subjective preference for “wild” populations, instead of “husbanded” populations. There’s never a clear, bright line between those two extremes in practice, and we’ll always do some management. But I think we all know which choices take us closer to “wild,” and which take us closer to “husbanded.”
Nothing wrong with husbandry, mind you, it’s just a different concept from wild, and wildlife, in my view, should be WILD.
So, to sum up, people who raise concerns about the declining quality of habitat for Yellowstone grizzlies are aiming for a goal of having a large, WILD (to the extent possible) population of grizzlies that has very little risk of disappearing over the next few centuries.
Their logic is that the declining habitat quality in Yellowstone will likely IMPEDE us from reaching that goal, and that therefore we need to keep protecting grizzlies from excess mortalities. And, ultimately, give them the freedom to spread out so they can still find enough food for a growing population, and to re-connect with other grizzly populations.
Let me say it again, though: the GOAL here comes from our VALUES, not from something called “Science.”
Science can help us refine our goals, can tell us the trade-offs of choosing one goal over another, can help us design ways of pursuing our goals, and can help us discern whether we’re reaching our goals. It doesn’t dictate our goals to us.
To some extent, your logic of applying livestock principles is sound. If you have a drought and your land can’t sustain 500 pairs, you either need to reduce your herd OR find more acres for them. Keep that second part in mind: culling isn’t always your only option.
I hope I’ve shed some light here on what people are thinking. It’s a good point you raised, and a catalyst for thought and discussion.
It was a service station that had been in operation since the 50s. Because of government imposed environmental regulations, my family has had to spend over 300k cleaning up the property in order to be allowed to sell it. I think we know a little something about being at the mercy of the government (we are not asking anyone else to pay by the way). Maybe you should think before you write…
Oh…..and how about the mercy of mother nature which can be much worse than government implied regulations. Most farmers/ranchers will live or die by the weather. Look at what Twin Falls is attempting to do to Southeast Farmers. Threatening to shut down their wells to some 49,000 acres. That will drive them out of business.
Wow, there is a lot to answer here. Steve, it is one thing to manage a business well, and it is another to have someone deliberately come in and bring something that has the right to destroy what they have. Wolves kill whatever they can get to, that is why they were brought in, some folks find that entertaining.
As a matter of fact Wyoming has a compensation plan to pay for grizzly losses. It is funded by the livestock groups and the hunters…..even though they do not hunt griz. the introduced wolves are a different story and they are overwhelming. I know we are never going to agree on this, you seem to feel entitled to create all of the problems for other people, and it is up to folks that did not want them introduced to begin with to pay for them. Do you really feel you are so special?
Think how much more difficult your parent’s cleanup would have been if everyone in town had been allowed, or even encouraged to throw their trash out on their property, and empty their used oil since they had to clean it up anyway, that was a part of doing business.
By the way Jeff, they could pay double fees and be fully reimbursed at the same aum for the wildlife wintering on their land. What you cannot or will not realize, wildlife, as well as livestock in this country need high mountain meadows in summer, and low country meadows ( privately owned pastures) in winter. What we have always done has worked well, now we have folks who want our whole state turned into a resort, preferably at our cost, I’m sure, and the residents can go jump in the lake…or serve the good guys who want control.
Why do you not want wolves and every other predator where you are? think of the hassle it would save, for those who want them to have them instead of forcing them on those who don’t. Wolves lived everywhere in the country in the beginning, so you live the 19th century life you want, and take your wolves, and leave us alone.
Who is saying they don’t want wolves from coast to coast?
I have wolves where I am, Marion. It is also a fact that the livestock industry will only tolerate so much “wildlife” before they start whining about too much feed(on public land mind you) is being eaten by wildlife, be it elk, buffalo, deer, or what have you and demanding depredation hunts. how about you keep cows on your private land like 90% of the rest of the country does?
I also have wolves where I am at Jeff. In fact, wolves have been responsible for a documented 8 losses of livestock and many more than normal have come up missing since the wolves have recently established themselves.
It is also a fact that the wolve advocates will not tolerate livestock because it interferes with their agenda……to have as many wolves as possible. Most wolf advocates I know do not care, or have the integrity to care if the impact a persons life financially or drives them out of business. They want their wolves in Idaho and they want it to be like Yellowstone for all wildlife which will never happen.
Only a matter of time and the wolves will severely impact our wildlife then hunters and livestock owners will have all the reason to whine. When that happens, and it has already started to occur, then they can whine all they want about the impact wolves are having on our ungulate populations. Go to yellowstone to see your beloved wolves. Idaho has too many as it is. It was long an agricultural/livestock state before wolves and now wolves are here you guys want to turn it into Yellowstone.
First of all, I am not complaining about wildlife feeding on public land, nor private for that matter. Whether you want to admit it or not, tens of thousands of head of wildlife are fed on PRIVATE land in the winter. That seems like a fair trade off for any perceived “subsidy”.
Again much of the livestock is killed, not only on private land, but within sight of the house. The first massive kill of sheep in one night happened to an 85 year old rancher who kept sheep, was eating his breakfast when he noticed magpies and ravens fluttering about his sheep corral. When he went to investigate, he found a sight guaranteed to destroy anyone’s appetite, 30 some head of dead and mutilated sheep lying in blood and guts all over the place. That would make you very happy, I’m sure if they belonged to you. He has incidently been hit several times since. One dog was attacked while being walked to the barn by it’s owner, (because several other dogs had been killed by wolves by the house), that is the delightful reality of this mess.
Oh Jeff. Now that wolves are here there will never be too much wildlife eating feed for the livestock owner to complain about. It is simple mathematics. More wolves = less wildlife. Where did you come up with the idea that more wolves = more wildlife?
Wolfen,
wolves are wildlife
cows are not
wolfen, wolves were not reintruduced so there would be “more wildlife”. They were reintroduced and will hopefully be reintroduced elsewhere in the united states to create a more complete ecosystem.
it’s about an ecological balance. How did all the wildlife inclusive ever make it up to the point that man started to decide what animals were desirable and which were not?
C’mon, the wolves were introduced in order to fulfill a dream world held by those who have no idea what is going on. Let’s face it, what is being done by the greens of today is just what was done by the YNP managers a hundred years ago. The “ecosystem” is being designed the way certain people with power have decided it should be designed, just exactly what was being done then. The only difference is they thought they were preventing prey animals from all being killed off. Now it is to kill off prey animals. Either way it is trying to manipulate nature to suit a preconceived idea.
The idea that ranchers are not in power is ludicrous! All one need do is look at how the Wyoming legislature has steadfastly refused to cooperate in the development of a management plan that will ensure the long-term viability of a wolf population to see that the livestock industry is calling the shots.
Further, wolves were reintroduced to right an ecological (and dare I say “moral”
wrong. Although some of the commentaries by visitors to this board posit the idea that wolves are simply a conspiracy to drive ranchers off of the land, nothing could be farther from the truth. Ultimately, economic and ecological factors will bring an end to large-scale ranching in the arid West; subsidies will end, fuel costs will sky rocket, the curtains will come down and none of it will have anything to do with the presence or absence of wolves.
If we want to eat, we’d better hope that ranching never ceases. Can you imagine being at the mercy of terrorist regimes for food and fuel?
There is probably no way our points of view will ever converge. I consider it a far worse wrong to force folks out of business and out of their homes to make room for predators, than it was to rid the area of predators to allow humans to survive. Do you feel your home and business should be eliminated to make room for predators or any other species? My point is Rob, we can’t put the genie back in the bottle, we live in the 21st century, you can’t pick a certain group of people and say their rights are going to take back seat to species that we presently deem more important than people. And we both know there is no way you are going to make every person in the US live a 19th century life over again to make wildlife the dominant species.
Some years ago I questioned environmental groups about why they wouldn’t allow beaver in DC. The editor of Sierra said that city folk could not put up with wildlife, but “somebody has to sacrifice”, to me that is not a generous and caring statement.
Marion,
Wolves were reintroduced as a result of enforcing then law of the land, the ESA. A law by the way signed into law by President Nixon in 1973 and given “teeth” in 1982 by President Reagan. Among other species besides the wolf, were the bald and golden eagle and the California Condor (can you believe the livestock industry was party to a law suit to prevent the California Condor from being re-introduced.) Point is that the livestock industry mindset is that there should be nothing that remotely interferes with there agenda, be animal or human. Along with the oil companies present the biggest threat to the freedoms of the people in the west.
Rob,
Maybe you did not notice the thread to the Defenders of Wildlife. The are an anti-ranching group which means they are in the business of driving ranchers out of business. And what does DOW do…..they vehemently support the reintroduction of wolves no matter the financial loss to livestock producers. So do not tell me they are not conspiring to drive ranchers off of the land, and that is the truth. Go to the link I posted early on and it states their purpose when it comes to wolf restoration.
Jeff, glad you knew wolves were wildife. That means another major predatory wildlife eating and killing all other wildlife which also means less opportunity for the hunters. A
Also glad to know you know that cows are not wildlife. Would have hated to educate you in this manner.
Oh Rob, I already know of several ranchers who are having difficulties with wooves and are suffering significant financial loss due to wolves which is an economic factor that will drive them out of business. The other ones are contributors to but losses to wolves is also a big part of the financial and economic loss they suffer.
What was changed in 1982 was the ability to plant an animal outside of it’s habitat. It also released the FWS from liability if the animal killed or or otherwise damaged another species, including a native species ( Lupus Irremotus). Voila that cleared the way to introduce the non essential wolves into the 3 state area with no repercussions.
The reason for objections by the owners to putting endangered species on private land is that they take precedence on the use of that land. Farmers cannot farm if it interferes in any way with the species, same with ranchers, they cannot irrigate fields, use them to feed livestock, build barns or whatever if it interferes with a designated species. Meanwhile the landowner is still responsible for the payments, taxes, upkeep, etc on his property. But someone else gets to dictate the use, but of course they pay nothing, that falls on the guy that “owns” it. Fair compensation as directed by the Constitution of the United States of America comes to mind.
If that is greed to you, I suggest you think about how you might react if it is your property, or the use of it that is being taken.
Once again Wolfen, answer the question. How did all wildlife ever make it without man deciding which were good and which were bad? As for wild life or not what did you mean by wolves equal less wildlife. I believe you are ecologically ignorant. And here I was inclined to give you more credit than marion. Sorry, my bad.
I have read with interest the issues about wolf restoration from Sinapu and another pro wolf site. After commenting for a couple of years I can definitely draw one conclusion. The wolf advocates would much rather have livestock off of public land and with it ranchers out of business and they would much rather see development of this land to resorts, ranchettes, 5-acre lots, and oil and gas development in place of livestock. Why this is I will never understand.
But I do know that I would much rather see our public lands like they are now even with livestock use rather that seeing them taken over and doted by resorts, ranchettes, and oil and gas development. At least having livestock on them as they are now is as close to 19th century america as we will ever get.
Marion, you are asking for a designer ecosystem that consists of ONLY what you want in it, ranching and hunting. “Greenies” are forcing a designer ecosystem on you that includes ranching, hunting AND a complete ecosystem with a keystone predator. One side seems a bit more inclusive than the other… Stop being dramatic. Ranching is never going to be phased out in the west, it will most likely not even decrease significantly. You must not have much faith in the profession if you think 5% (oh hell lets say 10% to make you happy) depredation will kill the industry. I would honestly predict that wolves would be exterminated from the lower 48 again before environmentalists ever gained enough power to end ranching on public land. I know that being pessimistic and constantly predicting the worst case scenario gets everyone on your side charged up to support you, but at the end of the day I think that you and I both know that this wolf controversy will turn out somewhere in the middle, with some hunting allowed in some areas to control numbers and protection in others.
Jeff, wildlife has been managed by man since the beginning of time, that is a fact. There is some use by wildlife that is simply not compatible with humans. Wax eloquent all you want about how we need to adjust, a herd of buffalo are never going to be amblind down the street in NYC or even LA. That doesn’t mean the people who live there are not caring, it is simply that free roaming buffalo are not compatible with cities or towns….. and certainly not with freeways. In fact not much is compatible with places like that, I guess.
It is very easy for you to poo poo the overall affect of wolves on human lives here, in large part becaue it doesn’t affect you personally in any negative way. The problem is the damage done to individuals by the animals. Individual families are losing tremendous amounts of money, and are told they are greedy if they complain. Not everyone is impacted equally. Some have been hit time and again, and control isn’t usually done until the second hit.
Imagine your payday coming and being told that the computer ate this months paycheck. If you fill out enough paper correctly you may be able to recoup it in a couple fo years or so. If it happens again though they will fix the computer. Then a few months later the same thing happens again, but this time, it must have been your fault, the money just vanished.
I don’t know how much power you think the enviros need, but right now they have vitually unlimited power, the hundreds of million that flow into their coffers tax free gives them that power. Virtually none is spent on any real projects, nearly every penny is spent on lawyers to take away private property rights and prevent compensation to the owners.
I believe lobbyists have cost this country unbelievable amounts of money, and environmental lobbyists are at the top of the heap. They are not elected by anyone, but are able to exert tremendous control over other people. They are extremely dangerous to a free society.
Marion, you have stated multiple times now, in different way, that you know (or know of) people that have applied for compensation from Defenders, and it has been years before they see their check. Please provide their names and locations, so I can look into this with Defenders and get them their money–otherwise, stop with these assertions. To my knowledge, Defenders has been tremendously expeditious with making payments on confirmed and probable depredations.
I will pull up the Pinedale online site and try to find the article she wrote of her interview with them. I suspect if you ask DOW themselves why some folks are complaining of delayed payments, they will tell you the various excuses, but I believe they will admit there are some problmes.
Marion - I agree with you about lobbyists.
I can’t agree with you that “environmental l