In the Valley of the Wolves
Friend and filmmaker Bob Landis has a new special airing on the PBS series Nature this Sunday called In the Valley of the Wolves. The eight minute promo piece below should be enough to get you to watch the special, but if you need more prodding, consider this: Bob Landis gives selflessly of his time, chronicling on film the remarkable comeback of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. He does it because he is called to do it. He does it because he believes that it is both honorable and important for the world to get a more intimate glimpse of these incredibly important carnivores.
On any given day, one can find Bob Landis at the roadside somewhere in Yellowstone. For this film, Bob spent months following the Druid Peak pack as they went about their business, fought with their rivals, played, hunted and howled. Don’t miss this rare and compelling look into the lives of wolves. You’ll be glad you did.
Filed under: News, Wildlife Restoration
Amazing special! Actually being there for some of those events was surreal.
I saw it last night. It was a fascinating view of their lives.
I watched this special a few nights ago and I enjoyed it immensely! Watching the program prompted me to search out more information about the wolves (and other wild life) of the Lamar Valley…fascinating stuff!
While there is still time, I hope we can stop the encroachment of man into what little wilderness we have left on the planet. To loose all this magnificence would be catastrophic in ways we can not yet imagine or comprehend.
The only way to stop encroachment of man into the wilderness is to make it off limits to everyone, not jsut certain people.
The very best part of that show was the eagle taking the food from the coyotes mouth. I knew the wolves were viscious, but I didn’t realize they would delibertly set out to kill other than for food.
Beautiful photography, Landis is lucky to have that kind of access.
“I knew the wolves were viscious, but I didn’t realize they would delibertly set out to kill other than for food.” Why do you have to be so negative and drag down an otherwise positive thread? Are you here to be toxic?
Why is it negative, they are what they are. I guess I knew the sloughs had run out the druids, but I didn’t know they stalked them, I didn’t even realize that they would go out of their way to kill others of their kind.
I like for things to make sense to me, and that doesn’t. Neither does the unknowns coming in and trapping the female sloughs (?) in their dens. I’d like to know why, especially in the case of the unknowns apparently they didn’t want the territory or else it wasn’t as good as they thought or why???? Have they realized they were running out of prey in some areas before it became more obvious to humans? They were willing to take the risks it seems to me for some reason other than spring break.
I’m not all wrapped up in idolizing them so I wonder about these things that do not seem to be normal, nor even in the best interests of those aggresive wolves.
Marion,
Most species on the planet will fight among themselves for a verity of reasons and a large % will kill each other andsome even eat each other. It is called nature. The only thing is, is that once again you are trying to attribute human concepts to animals. I realize that you are that dense but please have some one look over your posts before you continue to remove all doubt.
There is very little we know about these and other animals. Going out and killing them will prevent us from ever unlocking their secrets. You can’t wrap your mind around the fact that territorial animals would kill one another for a territory? Rob, could we get a marion free thread to discuss positive stories like this film without her pulling everyone down with her negativity?
Marion, all animals are terrritirial to some degree. Even bulls will fight each other to serious injury or even death, on occasion. That is why they make them steers. I’ve seen horses killed in paddock skirmishes. And humans are the worst to fight over territory. You do not win anyone over to your side with these uninformed comments. All you are doing is solidifying everyone else’s belief that anti-wolfers are ignorant uneducated neanderthals who care only about what can be exploited from the land without returning anything.
I understand perfectly that all animals fight, it was the deliberate stalking that I found disturbing. Perhaps it was the way it was photographed, but it looked almost like a deliberate march in to destroy another pack. And at least in the video it did not really appear that they needed more territory since they tried to hold both.
Steve, I am banned and always have been from Ralph’s page, so that is “Marion free” if it bothers you so much for an opposing viewpoint to be posted. It does him, so he did something about it.
Cat, I hope you will note that I have never once found it necessary to resort to name calling to try to make a point. Does that really add strength to your point of view?
Merely an observation Marion, not directed at you personally but to wolf haters in gerneral to which you help perpetuate the stereotype.. But if the shoe fits…
Wow…this is almost as exciting as the film!
Not really….
Found this page trying to find out more about Landis. The other night we watched this film glued to our seats in awe of how honestly and beautifully he filmed and told the story of the Yellowstone Packs. Having made several short trips out to Lamar over the years it was a deep reminder I need to get on making my plans to go back!
The problem is not wolves per sey, it is self important people who come in and decide they are justified in doing as they wish with land and property that other people own.
The wolves are the victims of those people who are willing to use them to take over other folks property, and satisfy thier own egos.
Marion, spare me. I am not in this for my own ego. I believe that we have committed a terrible crime against God and Nature to have nearly wiped wolves off of the face of the planet. It is exactly your attitude about “property” that fomented the slaughter of wolves (and the Wild in general).
Why was it right for us to come along and declare that the land these creatures (and native peoples) had lived on for millennia suddenly belonged to us? The least we can do is share it with them, equitably.
You see marion, this is why you shouldnt be posting on this thread. Nobody is talking about the movie anymore because everyone is wrapped up refuting your tired claims! If you don’t like the film or if you like it, say so, but spare us your philosophical musings about wolf behavior and property because they have nothing to do with In the valley off the wolves! There are many other places on wild again where you can spout off about these topics. Your opinion has a place here, just not on this thread.
Let me ask you this? Is your goal to hijack every thread on this blog and derail everyone off topic? If so, it is very sad.
Look, I asked a simple question, I am researching the answer myself in Smith’s book, Decade of the Wolf…at least I hope it is there.
Do you wonder why there is a backlash occuring against environmentalits? Read some of what you write.
Since I am so badly off track, please tell me how you share your home with “these creatures”, and survive.
Seems like the backlash is occuring against the anti-environmentalists (look at the last congressional election results if you dont agree). “these creatures”?? I am afraid I don’t understand the question… Is your survival in jeopardy? You share your home with creatures? Run and hide!!!!!!!
Lawks a mussy, Marion! The majority of articles on this blog have something to do with how “to live with these creatures”. The same is true of Ralph’s blog. The same is true of Sinapu’s website, and the Keystone Conservation website.
Good people are living “with the creatures” every day, including people who grow cows and sheep–and most of them don’t whine about it. Yep, that’s right, the silent majority are just making it work.
Marion, you ask “Please tell me how you share your home with “‘these”", and survive”. If by home you mean the area in which we, you or anyone lives, the answer is that we first have to realize that the land on which we live does not belong exclusively ot us. We have to share this earth with others who were created to reside here as well. The land was given to them too. Native Americans believed that the land was like the air we breath. No one can claim absolute ownership of the air or the land. Nature dictates that it will be shared with all creatures in their proper habitats. We cannot dictate laws to Nature. Those who try will suffer the consequences that Nature deems appropriate. The only unnatural inhabitants of the delicate arid ecosystems of the west are cattle and sheep. All the rest, wolves, bears, bison, wolverines etc. Were placed here by Nature. Man has the capability and MUST learn to live with them. When man tries to dominate Nature, the result is often devastating to man. It is not our right to rewrite the laws of Nature. Those laws were established at the time of creation. And Creation will win in the end. Do you wish to thumb your nose at the Creator?
“these creatures” that is.
Cat if I am correct I believe that the Indians would fight each other constantly to raid and rape and pillage other Indian tribes. Each tribe obviously wanted the best hunting and wintering ranges, just like wolves. I think they did claim ownership of the land, and as soon as another stronger more dominate tribe came along and forcefully took it from them. Early Native Americans were very violent towards other tribes that were not their own. I will see if I can find the link I read on that subject.
It was a good video, I enjoyed it I might even head up to YNP with the Fam this winter and see if we can see some wolves. I dont see this wolf issue going away anytime soon though, both sides will continue to fight each other, no one compromises or see’s the others point of view, oh well as long as I can still hunt!!!
Elkhunter
You won’t be able to hunt wolves if they kill them all first.
Elkhunter, here is a link that might help explain Native American belief that land is not to be held by individual title.
http://www.narf.org/pubs/justice/1998fall.html
The 3rd paragraph under “What are Allotments” clearly states…”Culturally, private ownership seriously conflicted with the Universally held Tribal belief that land was a sacred resource to be used comunally.”
Of course they fought among themselves, in the same way wolves fight over territory. But they did not claim absolute ownership over the land. They shared it with the beasts and that is the point of my statement.
Cathy
I understand that, but they obviously viewed it as a possession and defended it to the death. If one tribe was stronger, they took it, if not, it stayed with the tribe that was strong enough to possess it. I know they had alot of respect towards different animals.
As for wolves being killed off, pro-wolf people have been saying that from the beginning. And 13 years later the wolf population keeps growing and growing. Wolves are here to stay, they are not going anywhere, too much money and time was spent to get them here to just let them disappear. There will probably be hunts and managments put in place, just like every other animal, predator and prey alike. They will probably have population objectives and will issue tags till those objectives are met. I hear pro-wolf people saying how they will buy a tag to save a wolf, thats not how it would happen. If they need to kill say 50 wolves, they will issue tags until 50 wolves are killed, and hunters will have to check in every day to see if the objective has been met. Thats how they manage cougars in UT. Cat I know you are against hunting but you also probably realize how valuable it is to ALL animals, from habitat protection to conservation.
The reason that I dont really have a desire to see wolves/grizz populations grow is because of activists. In one post they wanted to ban hunting in areas where grizz encounters are happening. I have read many of your posts Cat wanting to ban hunting and encouraging others to buy property and not allow hunting. So you can see why hunters/sportsmen are not jumping up and down to increase wolf/grizz populations. There is no trust, so we allow wolves in CO, then there are some wolves shot in conflicts, then you want to ban hunting in those areas where the conflicts arise. Thats the main reason I dont want wolves in UT, they bring alot of drama. I just dont trust pro-wolf/activists not because you are not good people, but that I can sense that it is a way to attack something that I really enjoy doing.
Elkhunter
Elkhunter,
OK, so your problem is not with the wolves per se’, only with the people they attract, their entourage so to speak? Why not address the issues with the people instead of apposing the presence of wolves? Wolf supporters are used to compromise. That is how they got their foot in the door in Yellowstone and Idaho. and Montana. For instance, I am apposed to the hunting of wolves anywhere in the nation UNTIL they have been restored to as much of their natural range as possible which includes Utah and Colorado because of the contribution they make to the ecosystem. However, I would be willing to agree to a hunt, even in Colorado after that restoration has been accomplished. And I’m about as stubborn as an activists gets.
Surely you must realize the benefit to the ecosystems that the wolf affords. Wouldn’t the enjoyment of those benefits, including improved health of elk herds, be worth putting up with a few big mouth wolf activists? (Not that that would be me) Would you tollerate the wolves if you didn’t have to deal with activists?
Also, could you please tell me why hunters have to wrap neon survey tape around every tree they pass? That has bugged me for years.
My biggest problem is the fact they will not keep their word…then blame everyone else for not being trustworthy.
Marion,
Please tell us what word was not kept.
Cat,
the tape bothers me too. originally I believe it was to mark a kill because it can sometimes take two or more days to get an animal recovered. Then you have the Hansel and Gretel syndrome of marking your trail. Why a person wont learn some basic land navigation such as map reading and how to read a compass is beyond me.
Cat, the whole foot in the door is the issue. In the beginning we were led to believe that as soon as 300 in 3 states delisting would occur. That was 7 years ago when numbers reached those levels. And populations keep growing every year. Then the 10j rule came out, and activists freaked out, but populations are continuing to rise.
And why would you be opposed to hunting wolves in ID until wolves are in CO? That I dont understand, wolves are not going anywhere in ID, there are over 800 I believe, yet no hunt in sight! You want wolves to repopulate their historic range, how much of thier historic range is even suitable for wolves? 20% at most? They did a study that UT could MAYBE support 200 wolves. That was done by Utah State University. You really think that 200 wolves are going to turn UT’s elk herds around? Our herds are as healthy as they have ever been, all either at objective or just below objective, the main issue we have is lack of habitat, not lack of predators, between cougars and bears and humans the elk have plenty of predators.
The issue is not wolves, if we could manage wolves just like we manage every other predator I would be all for wolves, but that will never happen. Activitst will always want wolves to live above the law, look at the Great Lakes Region, they wanted to delist and immediately activists sue. And they have THOUSANDS of wolves. Cat we have 2 very different goals with wolves, you want as many as possible and to allow them to populate until they start killing each other because there is not enough room for them, like what is happening in YNP, and I want some, as long as we get to manage them like every other predator. But you and I know that will never happen. Thats why I would oppose wolves in UT, cause once you “have your foot in the door” we will have what ID has. A circus. Then we will start hearing about wanting to eliminate hunting in areas where grizz/wolves are present. Almost all activits are against hunting, and I really enjoy hunting. So they threaten what I my family has been doing for generations, just as you feel strongly about wolves, I feel the same way about hunting.
Elkhunter
As for the tape, alot of the tape is from the Forest Service, they mark tree’s to cut down or to remove for firewood. Thats at least in UT. I see them marking trees all the time. I use it to mark blood trails, but the large majority is from the Forest Service.
Elkhunter,
The reason I don’t wand to see the wolf delisted or a wolf hunt season established until wolves occupy as much of their former range as possible.( and if ciourse I realize that most of that range is no longer suitable, but some of it is.) is because according to the Colorado Guidelines, there is no provision for reintroduction. There is only protection IF they migrate here on their own. Before delisting and a wolf hunt became probabilities, that migration seemed possible. As the rise in wolf populations in a particular area would encourage dispersion to another area. And Colorado would have been the first place they would migrate to, as has been the case on rare occasions.
With the population so drastically reduced in Wyoming especially, this natural migration is not likely to occur. There simply are no animals to disperse. And the few that do will not make it to Southern Colorado, which is some of the best wolf habitat in the lower 48. I besieve there will be less conflict here as well. The cattle industry is on the decline and hunting is not as popular in some of the more remote areas simply because of the difficulty of access.
The tape I’m referring to is DEFINATELY left by hunters. I live in a very popular hunting area and I have watched them. It only occurs during hunting season and they have left rolls of it behind at their campsites, along with copious amounts of other trash. I spend a lot of time in the woods myself and I know what the forest service does. I notice it is mostly out of state hunters in our area. I wish they’d stop leaving the tape. It’s dangerous if ingested by animals and I’ve gotten in the habbit of following the hunters in and removing it before it does damage.
Cathy
Cat, for something like that to happen would take decades. I personally dont feel that its fair that wolves should be able to populate, all the while we are managing every other animal, while we wait for wolves to migrate to surrounding states or areas. If I lived in WY or ID I dont think I would be to happy with that sort of a game plan. If you want them that bad, then petition CO to transplant some like ID did. I personally know in UT that I dont see how 200 wolves would do much besides appease wolf-lovers in UT.
The main issue Cat is that most activist dont want hunting at all, especially of wolves.
Elkhunter,
We are in the process of petitioning the state of CO for reintroduction. The problem is that in the mean time there needs to be a viable population of wolves that would allow some of them to be transplanted. If that population is reduced in other states to just enough to keep them from being relisted, there won’t be any availabe for transplant. I would like to see that population especially in Wyoming remain high until wolves either are reintroduced or have migrated to Colorado. Migration will only take decades if the population in adjoin states is severely reduced. I agree reintroduction is a better plan. We’r working on that. But even that is going to require a healthy population in other states from which wolves may be acquired.
I’m not as concerned about control issues in Idaho and Montana although I don’t think it is wise to reduce the populations as much as is called for. There may be a need to acquire wolves from these states in the future as well. You have to realize that these 3 states an important source for wolves that may be needed in the future to establish packs in other areas of the country as well.
I don’t think that is completely true about activists. As I said, we may not like hunting but most are willing to compromise in order to accomplish their objective, especially where wolves are concerned. Most wolf advocates are also eco/enviro-activists as well not animal rights activists. Wolf and environmental activists desire to restore healthy ecosystems which will benefit all. And until there is a balance there we, for the most part feel it is unwise to decimate one of the nations healthiest wolf population sources by hunting. When healthy populations are establish in as many areas as feasable, I, and most other (I don’t mean to speak for anyone else here) wolf/environtmentalist should have no problem with responsible control measures. We wish to see healthy populations, not unbalanced ones. However I do not figure the cattle industry view into this equasion as the presence of cattle is wholy unnatural and invasive to the western ecosystems.
It’s like: Do we in Colorado have the right to damn up the Colorado River or polute it to satisfy industrial needs? No. This would have serious repercussions on folks downstream in neighboring states who depend on that water.
Cat, those are good points, but my main hold back is that activists would not want wolf management at all. I read constantly how activists state that wolves control their own populations and dont need control from us. I dont believe that one bit.
As for control issues, you can see why ID sportsmen would be a little upset, in the beginning they were under the impression that after 300 wolves delisting would occur. Now, 13 years later, and over 1400 wolves delisting is still beging fought fiercely. If activists are not happy now, when will they be? How many wolves are enough wolves to keep activists happy? If they would allow game agencies to manage wolf populations just like cougar and bear populations, then I would support wolves in UT. But if we dont have 100% control over them, I dont want them here. Because I just dont trust activists.
And I dont think wolves will solve CO elk problems, Ralph and other pro-wolf maintain that wolves DONT have significant effects on elk populations. Ralph has stated that many times. So if a reduction of elk is the goal to make herds healthier then I dont think wolves are the key. You either need to harvest more elk during the hunts, or hope fdor a really bad winter.
Elkhunter
Cat,
Where did you get the idea that wolves have decreased dramatically in Wyoming? Becasue our 2007 increase is “only” 15% instead of the 20% in other places?
I realize tht FWS has had to kill lots of wolves, but remember that is after they have killed livestock. Do you have a solution to the increasing wolves and increasing losses….other than ranchers bite the bullet?
Elkhunter, I’m not thinking in terms of elk population but in terms of diseases. And wolves contribute SO much more to ecosystems than that. Too long a list to go into here but I’m sure you’re aware of the evidence supporting this fact. In a world without man’s interference, wolves do have an auto-adjust population control. They adjust their numbers to the amount of prey available. Otherwise there would have been no herds of elk, deer, bison, moose etc. present when European settlers invaded the west. The problem of overpopulation occurs ONLY where cattle are present. In the view of most environmentalists, cattle are an invasive destructive species on the delicate arid ecosystems of the Rocky Mountain west.
Therefore I cannot consider wolf overpopulation, which is not a threat to any other species except cattle, as a problem.
That being said, I do realize that cattle are not going away entirely in the west, (although the industry is steadily dwindling in the Region of the San Juan Mountains of Southern Colorado, which is one of the reasons this is a perfect place for wolf reintroduction) therefore I would not be apposed to there being some measure of control afforded to the cattle industry.
However, I am comvinced that the cattle industry alone is the entire problem. It takes many more times the area to feed a cow in the west than it does in more suitable regions of the country. They suck up far more water than this arid region can afford, and then they destroy the streams and watersheds, further ruining what is left.
The hunting sector should redirect some of its angst against wolves and wolf activists toward the cattle industry. They are the very reason that activists have to get involved. If cattle were removed (from public lands innitially) they wouldn’t be threatened by wolves, the animals you hunt would have more access to fodder and you’d enjoy a greater expance in which to hunt. I think hunters would be more reasonable to deal with than the cattle industry.
Activists will be happy when there is a viable wolf population in all areas where it is feasable. When that occurs, no one has a problem with controling overwhelming populations. Here again I believe it is the cattle industries veiw that the population is overwhelming. But we would be willing to concede reasonable control measures in order to get them reintroduced.. The problem is not that we feel there aren’t enough wolves in Id, Mt. and Wy. but that there aren’t any in areas that need them.
I’m not real sure why hunters would have a problem with wolf populations. You said yourself that they have no real effect on elk populations. They are no threat to your interests.
Marion you obviously misread my comment. I said “IF” the wolf population is decreased dramatically in reference to their being a viable population to encourage dispersion. Maybe this is why you are always spewing misinformation and come across as an antagonist.
The wolves themselves might not be a threat, but activists are. Alot of activists think that there are not near enough wolves in ID or the surrounding areas. And wolf populations will control themselves in a non-human environment, but that cycle takes decades not just a few years. We control what they eat, so we should control them also. Now you may be okay with that, but the large majority as a whole do not want ANY wolves killed. I believe I read a comment on Ralphs site from you stating something of that nature. Also your comment to Mikarooni about buying up land and not letting hunters in at all kind of makes me not really believe the support you are saying you would give hunters.
Elkhunter
I agree with you about the cattle issue, I think there should be more regulation.
Cat here is your quote, this is why I dont really trust any activists.
catbestland Says:
October 28th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Yea Mikarooni!!!! buy some more ranches and keep more hunters out.
The comment I made on Ralphs blog about my dissagreeing with lethal control was that it is entirely abused and until it is shown that it will not be so, I do not think it should be used as an option. This is not contrary to what I just stated that I would not be apposed to RESPONSIBLE control measures. From what I have gathered, current lethal control measures especially in Idaho and Montana have been grossly abused. Roger Lang and the Sun Ranch are prime examples of this. There are many, many others.
I’m not sure I remember the comment I made to Mikarooni unless it was in reference to wolf hunting. And there again I am apposed to wolf hunting UNTIL we have a viable population in other areas especially Colorado. I don’t know where I said I would “give support to hunters” I simply said I wouldn’t appose hunting as a method of control IF overpopulation became a problem. I would rather see them hunted in a controlled situation than cattlemen given the authority to shoot at will. AND cattlemen don’t get to have any say in what that overpopulation is. As far as I am concerned their livestock are parasites on the land and I personally wouldn’t care if wolves killed every last one of them. I also said that hunters should have a bigger problem with the cattle industry than they do activists. I don’t know if that constitutes support. I am never going to love hunting. Tolerate it under controled circumstances, yes. Prefer it over cattlemen’s choice of control, yes. Love it, never. I’ll bet you this, get rid of the cattle and you’ll get rid of the activists.
Elkhunter
If you were referring to the fact that I agree with Mikarooni’s choice not to allow hunters of any sort on his private land, I certainly do. I own property here in CO and the hunters want to hunt on it and /or cross it to get to BLM and I will not allow it. I’m not stopping them from hunting. But they’d better not set foot on my land to do it. Should landowners have to tolerate wolf watchers invading their property to photograph wolves. Of course not. Although if I had wolves on my land I would allow that. It’s my choice. I hope I get that choice some day.
Elkhunter, do you think hunters should be allowed to hunt on private land without that owners permission. This is why I don’t trust hunters.
Thats not how that comment comes across Cat. It seems you made that point that by Mikarooni not allowing hunters to hunt on his land was a victory over hunting. Thats how I percieved that comment. I never said anything about land owners having to let hunters on their property, they can do what they want, its their land. But I get the feeling that you were happy that hunting was prevented. Thats what I gathered, I could be wrong though.
Elkhunter
It seems you should be working with sportsmen, you are obviously aware of what hunters do for conservation and habitat. Through funds and also through service hours. Groups like FNAWS and RMEF and MDF and Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever. They may not be in love with wolves, but what they do for habitat and conservation will never be touched by the likes of DOW and Sierra Club. It seems all their money goes to litigation.
Elkhunter
You may have misunderstood my comment about Mikarooni or perhaps I could have elaborated further. If I recall he had just written a long tale about how hunters had tresspassed on his property and left trash and elk guts an cut fences and were generally destructive even to his cabins I believe. I don’t recall all of it. But I applaud his efforts in discouraging this kind of behavior.
I have business associates in Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Ducks Unlimited. One of my elk sculptures was once auctioned off at a RMEF fundraiser. We bounce ideas off each other on occasion. I don’t see too much wolf oppositon among them. Of course they might just be avoiding a lengthy wolf tyrade from me.
Cat, you are right I misread this to mean that our population wasn’t growing enough:
“If that population is reduced in other states to just enough to keep them from being relisted, there won’t be any available for transplant. I would like to see that population especially in Wyoming remain high until wolves either are reintroduced or have migrated to Colorado.”
That being said, requiring Wyoming or any other state to raise wolves for repopulating other states was never mentioned in the EIS. The three states were to be delisted when the numbers reached 300 for the 3 states for 3 eyars running. We have far more than that in EACH state and it is not enough for you. We ahve mroe than kept our word….yours?
Why do you single Wyoming out for providing the wolves to populate other states? Because we are so impertinent and dare to speak out?
Marion, Evidence produced in the years since reintroduction occured in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming indicate that wolves have had an even more possitive effect on the environment than first expected. Since then, environmentalist have come to realize that their presence could benefit other ecosystems as well. This WAS done as a scientific experiment and NOT a tourist attraction, as you like to immagine. Also in the 13 years since reintroduction, it has become increasingly apparent that our ecosystems are in more trouble than once thought. This changes the situation.
Lets say for instance, if a pharmiceutical company were under government contract to produce a certain vacine for a number of years and that contract expires and they could produce other pharmiceuticals at a higher profit. Then there is an outbreak of the disease the vacine was produced for. Should it not be required of the company to continue to produce the vacine to benefit the nation even though it might not be in that company’s best interest financially? Of course it should.
No one is asking you to raise wolves. Just not slaughter them until they have been either reintroduced to or they migrate to areas that will benefit from their presence.
Why do I single out Wyoming? Look at a map. Duh!!!
The singling out of Wyoming is a matter of location. It has nothing to do with your big mouths.
Marion whines,
“The three states were to be delisted when the numbers reached 300 for the 3 states for 3 years running. We have far more than that in EACH state and it is not enough for you. We have more than kept our word….yours?”
As always Marion you only tell part of the information on any issue.
As you well know that the 300 was a minimum number for three years to start to CONSIDER delisting. In addition to that each state had to have AN APPROVED MANAGEMENT PLAN, which Wyoming never had and that is THE BIGGEST SINGLE REASON why delisting did not happen several years ago. Will you ever tell the whole truth about anything?
No, Jeffe, that was supposed to start the countdown to delist, and the states have to keep at least theat many wolves, 3 years of 300 wolves was supposed to eman delisting period, and they stay that way unless they drop below the 300. The plan says nothing about raising them to repopulate other states. That is just a grasp by enviro groups to maintain control over people’s lives…or perhaps they were lying in their teeth when the original plan was devised and this was the idea all along.
This is one of the changes that must be made to the ESA, it must not be openended. It must have a goal that when reached means automatic delisting, no lies, no changing the rules, no skating. The delsiting must be as firm as the listing.
Marion , as far as I know the suggestion to keep a higher population of wolves in Wyoming ih hopes of having a source from which to draw on, is strictly MY idea. Others may naturally be thinking in the same direction because it makes GOOD SENSE. It is not however, or at least I am unnaware of official STAND by any “enviro groups” as you put it. I wish it were and I will lend my efforts to making it so, but stop foaming at the mouth and spreading around blogs that “enviro groups” are out to get you or want to control people’s lives. Why would anyone want to control YOUR life. Stop being so paranoid. Have you seen a doctor about that? They have drugs to treat that now.
Marion,
Once again you try to lie you way out. READ the plan for reintroduction. It says exactly that the 3 year 300 population would be a trigger to CONSIDER delisting. Curiously or maybe not considering your propensity for s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth on all subjects you do not even talk about the only thing that has really held up delisting and that is the state of Wyoming.
Ok Jeffe, post a link to your copy that says consider.
Back to the show. Does anyone know how obtain a copy? Regretfully I did not record it. I checked the Nature website but I did not see where one could purchase a DVD or video. Thanks for any advice.
Editor’s Reply: Thanks for asking Chris. You can purchase a DVD of the Show for $19.99 by clicking here.
Marion, that dog won’t hunt! How many time must I repeat this: The recovery plan failed to address the actual legal requirements of the Endangered Species Act, which mandate (you do get the concept of a mandate, don’t you?) that the species be restored to, “all or a significant portion of its range.”
Presently, wolves occupy less than five percent of their former range in the lower forty-eight states (the area where they are listed as endangered), and even within Idaho, Wyoming and Montana they occupy less than 15% of their former range. 15% is hardly significant from a recovery perspective, because, logically, that means that the species presently occupies less than 85% of its former range, which is more significant than 15%.
Those are the numbers that must be dealt with in determining when de-listing can occur. The 300 wolves threshold had to do with the attainment of a minimum viable population, which is a purely biological concept, and has nothing to do with the requirements of the law.
Are you saying as long as you keep them out of Denver, NYC, and San Fran, you can keep demanding that Wyoming have more?
You must get a real charge out of helicopter gunning of the poor things.
I spotted a white wolf crossing the road near Lewis Lake, around dusk on October 16th, 2007. It was so beautiful. I was heading south from West Thumb.
According to the Nature program - interactive guide - there are only 2 white wolves in Yellowstone. I felt incredibly lucky to ever see a wolf in the wild - and for it to be a white one, amazed.
“In the Valley of the Wolves” was a great program, I’ll be watching it over and over again - like so many “Nature” programs.
Chris H, I can’t believe you actually dared to talk about the show! I hope Marion doesnt get offended at someone actually staying on topic… If you have ondemand you can access the show for free if it is on there (at least I can).
Craig, I AM SPARTACUS. I gave the Galineses the money to buy the land and I took the pictures and sent them in, just so we could start a revolt!!!!!
Steve, then why do the enviros target Wyoming if the world doesn’t revolve around us? Take your wolves and your mice and go home, and ignore us. We won’t mind at all, and you can make the paradise you want in your own yard.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO WOLF REINTRODUCTION IN MY OWN BACKYARD (see my comments on northeast wolf reintroduction above)!!! WOLF SUPPORTERS ARE NOT OPPOSED TO REINTRODUCTION IN THEIR OWN BACK YARDS! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
How is only wyoming targeted? Because the “enviros” are not happy with their intentionally poor management plan? If you act like morons, expect to be treated like morons. Frankly, if wyoming fell off the map, I don’t think the country would really notice (I would miss yellowstone though).
I have a question. If elk were suddenly almost extinct in the lower 48 due to global warming or something, would you support the federal government doing everything possible and using the endangered species act to restore the species?
I will be in yellowstone thanksgiving week and my group is not spending one dime in wyoming. Because of you the wyoming economy has suffered a loss of a few hundred dollars. I am sure Montana thanks you!
Face it Marion, the only thing that Wyoming has to offer that the rest of the world gives a damn about is Yelowstone and the wolves outside the park. Are you not bright enough to know that you are sitting on an “enviro” goldmine if you were smart enough to take advantage of it. The cattle industry is dying. They’ve shot themselves in the foot by destroying the land that feeds them and by showing the rest of the world that they care nothing about the rest of the world or any living thing on it. Can you immagine how much money could be made by taking all that land that is being destroyed by cattle and opening private wildlive preserves???? Do you not know that the government spent at least $10,000 per wolf to get them from Canada? You’re sitting on a goldmine that people would respect you for if you’d use your head and make it work for you instead destroying it as fast as you can. Look at the thousands people spend just to come to Yellowstone to see wolves. THINK
Cat, I can predict the future… Marion will counter with her “lost hunting revenue” and “no new businesses in silver gate and cooke city” arguments. Followed by her “the economic studies showing benefits from wolves were carried out by incompetents” argument. I have been down this sad road too many times.
Steve, I’m sure your’re right, More proof that too much beef causes dememtia.
In the first place where would wolf watchers spend their money in Wyoming watching wolves….Jackson? they need more money like Heinz needs more pickles. Create another job for another person that could sleep in their vehicle because there is no place they can afford to live?
Are you hoping to set up your telescopes on a ranch so you can watch them kill cows or sheep? Maybe the owners dog if they are old and slow?
I don’t know if West Yellowstone gets many wolf watchers, otherwise it is going to pretty much be Gardiner and Cooke City isn’t it? And I have asked before have either of those places built new motels or restaurants for the wolfers?
Actually I had heard that the total cost by the end of the two years was more like a quarter of a million per wolf trucked in.
If you would look at the link below, you would see that there is a very large, very new super 8 motel in cooke city. Opened in 2004. 33 rooms. They even have wifi!! I am sure that it has nothing to do with wolves though. Any thoughts on my elk question? Would you support government efforts to save a species you value? As much as I would LOVE to see some cows and sheep getting killed I am going to have to settle for soaking in the scenery, the wolves, and my personal favorite animal… the bison.
I can only imagine what you love to see through your scope. Probably bison being hazed and tortured on people’s private property, bighorn sheep being killed to benefit sheep ranchers, wolves being killed, and any other perverted acts that benefit the livestock industry.
http://www.travelhero.com/prophome.cfm/id/152425/hotels/reservations/index.html
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=132
How about if they spend their money in and around all the new wildlife preserves that used to be eco-unfriendly ranches. And if ranchers had any brains, they’d get rid of the cows and sheep and replace them with wolves and bison and we could pay them big money to come and see them and the government would pay them big money for live wolves to use in reintroduction programs all over the world. I’ll tell you this, I was in West Yellowstone just about a month ago, for 2 nights and I spent well over $1000. and all of it on wolf related activity and shopping. This is a fact because my husband just pointed it out to me on our visa bill. I plan another trip in April and this time I’m taking several friends. So maybe Gardiner and Cooke City should be a little more wolf friendly.
Is your source of information on reintroduction costs per wolf the same font of knowledge from which you acquired the rest of your misinformation like “wolves are destroying all the wildlife, and cattle grazing is actually good for the land and your total misunterpretation of the ESA along with the “‘greeenids”‘ are out to get you?”
I guess I don’t have much of any info right, I have been under the impression that Gardiner and especially Cooke City were very very wolf friendly. That of course is just based on recommendations for rooms etc that I see on these boards.
I thought every wolf lover going to Yellowstone knew about these folks in Cooke.
http://www.wildlifealongtherockies.homestead.com/
By the way what do you think the wolves would eat on those ranches if they raise only wolves and buffs? Only the Mollies are able to bring down many buffalo, and the fight with the Hayden Pack demonstrates they need elk too. Buffalo are not the main prey of wolves by any stretch of the imagination. Wolves cannot be “kept” anywhere unless they are in a pen, surely that is not what you are suggesting.
No, I’m not suggesting a pen. On a wild life refuge, I would expect them to eat wildlife. Do you not have any wildlife in Wyoming? No elk, deer or antelope in Wyoming? I merely suggested that buffalo replace the cows and sheep because I would assume elk and deer are already.there. Although I do hear that sheep make nice hors d’oeuvre for the wolves. You could donate some for the cause if you like.
I’m sure the wolf friendly shops and hotels in Gardiner and Cooke City are doing just fine. They know how to take advantage of a good thing when they see it.
Cat, someone who owns private property does not OWN the wolves or elk or deer or bison on their properties. So it would be highly illegal for someone to capture a wolf and seel it. As for the wolf watching, ID has more wolves than all other states combined, and their wolf watching revenue is very low. The areas the wolves live in is not like YNP where the animals sit and stare at you, and you can see wolves from the road. The wolves in ID inhabitat some very nasty terrain, and very hard to access. Not exactly what a family from CA and a sightseeing trip wants to hear. A 12 mile roundtrip hike to MAYBE see a wolf would not fly well for others.
As for a refuge, I dont see raising wildlife and charging people to look at deer/elk/bison/wolves would be that lucrative. If it was hunting and in a trophy area then yes, you might be able to generate enough income. You cant compare some dude’s ranch in WY to the revenue generating capabilities of YNP.
I also think people care a little bit more about WY than YNP and wolves. You should realize they generate alot of the oil and natural gas that our country uses to operate on a daily basis. Which I personnally care about.
As for the ESA and wolves inhabiting their historic range, you cant base anything on that, the ENTIRE STATE OF UT could support 200 wolves, according to a study done at USU. Yet historically I would imagine it held alot more. The same with CA, historically I bet they had thousands of wolves, I dont see CA supporting thousands of wolves. Common sense should apply, and that argument should not be used to stop delisting.
Elkhunter
Elkhunter,
I have had to rewrite this response because the first one I made disappeared into cyberspace. So if both of them appear, I appologize.
In this instance I am not making an argument against delisting. I am stating that ranchers have a unique opportunity to create an industry around thier wildlife and protect them at the same time. I am aware of the difficulty in cultivating this industry in Idaho due mostly, as you pointed out to the rough terrain. I don’t know if you are aware of it, but there is an effort currently being discussed on Ralph’s blog on how to promote this business in Idaho. I don’t think innaccessability is as much an issue in Wyoming.
I’m not sure what you mean by “it would be highly illegal to capture a wolf and steel it.” I am assuming the wolves are already present. Marion complains that the place is lousy with them. I do dissagree with you in that I believe a wildlife refuge could be quite lucrative. At least as much as ranching. This seems to be a trend in other areas, Horse Butte in Montana for one. And those who choose to avail themselves to this opportunity would have the world behind them.
Hunting is an option, at the owner’s discretion, but this is only seasonal. Otions would include a plethora of wildlife services from outfitting to dude ranching, camping and much more. I’m sure that government subsidies would be available considering the current trend toward “green” industries.
Elkhunter, I recently read a comment on Ralph’s blog, I believe made by him, about Wyoming ranchers complaining that there are too many elk in and out of the park which conflicts with other reports I have read. I am trying to find more information. Do you know anything about this?
You might ask Ralph about it. Who knows where he got it. The only thing I have ever heard is ranchers saying the feedgrounds are needed to keep the elk out of their pastures and off the feedlines. that jsutification has been used for many many years, not just since the wolves were trucked in.
The elk and deer can be seen in meadows along back roads in early morning and evening. Your chances of getting to watch one of the big predators killing them is almost non existent. Unlike habituated wolves, bears, and other wildlife in Yellowstone, wildlife outside is truly wild and you aren’t going to see them, at least not in the predator prey situation you’d like. Grazing ungulates is about the size of it, no killing…sorry.
If wolves are not dangerous to humans why aren’t they being introduced into populated areas? Coyotes have been caught in downtown LA, Denver, and even New York. There are large areas of open space in parks, golf courses, and wildlife refuges that could hold a pair of wolves and the populated buffer zones would prevent the wolves from fighting each other. Why should only rural people be able to see and hear the wolves? Wolves should be able to be enjoyed by ALL Americans.
Cat,
The reference to too many elk was actually made by ranchers and politicians in Montana. And not only just recently. Several months ago the same topic came up from the representative in Montana that has the town of Dillon in her precinct and was, to paraphrase, demanding that the excessive numbers of elk in southwest Montana be reduced.
Jeff E. This kind of flies in the face of some who claim that wolves are decimating elk populations. Huh.
Kelly,
I would love to see wolves inhabit a larger part of their orriginal habitat as well. Unfortunately we have to fight the whining cattle industry in order to get them reintroduced to states that have been determined to have suitable habitat. I don’t think it is practical to think that they could be placed in parks and wildlife refuges that were not large enough to sustain them and the prey base required to feed them. Also huge areas are required because wolves, unlike coyotes, are by nature extremely shy of people so they need enough room to seek seclusion. Another problem would be that by nature when their populations grow they disperse to other areas which would be a problem in parks and smaller urban wildlife refuges. But the more wolves we get in other states the better chance everyone will have to see and learn more about them. They are so extremely important to a healthy ecosystem. Keep voicing your support for them.
Kelly
There are some excellent books available to help you understand the biological problems and the political fight over the wolf issue. Some of them are:
“Decade of the Wolf” by Doug Smith
“Shadow Mountain” by Renee Askins
“Wolf Wars” by Hank Fischer
“Of wolves and men” by Barry Lopez
“Ninemile wolves” by Rick Bass
“Predatory Beaurocracy” by Michael J. Robinson
“Welfare Ranching” and “Comeback Wolves” are by a group of writers.
These are just some of my favorites, I’m sure others on this site can contribute a lot more.
Cathy
cat, it is interesting that on the one hand you are demanding that ranchers go out of the business of providing food for millions of people and raise wolves to entertain the city folk instead. Then you tell Kelly that they are shy of people and won’t be seen.
Even though someone must raise wolves to suit you, you still subscribe to NIMBY.
A book that might provide you some enlightenment is
In the first place Marion, All the catle raised in all thre states of Montan, Idaho and Wyoming, makes up about 1% of the total amount of beef produced in the entire country. The tiny state of South Corolina on the eastern seaboard produces more beef tha all three states combined. This does not justify the destruction of the land and eradication of the wildlife, including wolves that the cattle indutry in these states have caused. You have no power here Marion, be gone before someone drops a house on you.
Rob or anyone,
Does any one have a concise contact list of government officials in the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming who can be contacted by people who wish to complain about their policies toward wolves and wildlife? Maybe dept. of tourism too.
I have been contacted by some people in France who wish to express thier displeasure with these policies, and their unwillingness to spend tourist dollars there. I would like to help them get involved.
Marion,
Because I realize that you are slipping in and out of reality and are having a tough time researching any meaningful information here are two(there are tons more) links that expressly state at what point delisting can be “considered”.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2006/February/Day-08/e1102.htm
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
Cat, why is it that there is no list of books detailing the beauty, spirituality and majesty of cows? Marion, I am still waiting for you to answer the question I asked twice. Would you support federal government efforts/ the endangered species act if it was to save a species that you care about such as elk? It is pretty sad that you attack the “enviros” because if disease/ climate change ever reduce elk to an endangered status it will be the “enviros” who are on the front lines fighting to save them.
Steve, elk have been transplanted from Wyoming into lots of other states. I’m not sure jsut what you are getting at about supporting them. They are definitely in trouble in Yellowstone itself, and the question is where will the wolves go when they are gone? Are you going to send the planes to Canada to get you some more even if there is nothing for them to eat? Wolves primarily have one food….elk. That is an important griz food too, but they also eat fish, nuts, sedges etc.
Wolves are probably the most destructive predators there are, partly because they exist in packs that can kill almost anything, and they breed and reproduce fast. As you say you want to see the animals that others own and care about killed. Nothing I can ever say can overcome that kind of hatred toward your fellow man.
I jsut read an article tonight that Montana is the 7th largest cattle raising state with 1.4 million head of cattle. That would feed approximately 3 million families, not that their food is as important as getting what you want.
Lets pretend wolves, cows, bears and bison dont exist in the scenario i imagined for you. I know it is very difficult for you to have a conversation without going on a tirade against wolves. Hypothetically, if elk were facing extinction in the lower 48, would you support the federal government using any means necessary, financial or otherwise to restore the species? I think that you have an irrational bias against wolves and you are lying to yourself if you wouldnt not support an aggressive reintroduction plan for a species that you value.
I have nothing against growing food and even cows for the nation. First of all, if we completely eliminated beef from our food supply we would be just fine. Plenty of other things to eat. That being said, we all like steak and I think that we will all survive with wolves taking a couple percent of the 3% of the nations cattle that are in the tri-state reintroduction area. (I cannot back those numbers up but you could probably use a much more generous estimate, lets say wolves take something crazy like 50% of cows from MT, WY and ID. That would still have little to no effect on the nation’s food supply.) Once you stop exagerrating and being a drama queen maybe we can have a meaningful debate…
Another thing, I don’t appreciate you insinuating that I support the starvation of 3 million families just because I don’t support the corruption and foolishness of cattle ranching. I can go without eating beef and live a happy life… can you?
Marion,
How about the links I posted, I’m curious to see what kind of fabrication you try to explain that away with.
Marion,
Again what font of knowledge did you get this little pearl of wisdom from? The Anti Wolf Coalition Website? Here is the official USDA reports for 2005 and 2006. Montan is 26th on the list of cattle producing states. not very good considering some states don’t even produce cattle. Wyoming and Idaho were so far down on the list that I didn’t even bother to count.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp
Marion,
And the count was 12,600 head of cattle not 1.4 million, That wouldn’t even 3 million people a beanie wienie. Don’t you ever get tired of looking like a total bafoon?
The one good thing you do for this blog is proove to anyone who may be undicided that the sterotype of the ignorant rancher is right on.
I do not know where you got 12,600 head of cattle for Montana, but you’d better look again.
By the way read Ralph’s article today about the Great Lakes wolves, then think of the wolf in eastern Montana that killed over a hundred head of livestock at the ranchers expense because it was a mixture.
Then read pages 3-5 of this article about the introduced Mexican wolves.
http://rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-su-land-in-crisis.pdf
Okay, you were talking about the number of ranches, not the number of cattle. So you are saying that many family businesses are expendable to please you, is that correct?
http://www.beef.org/NEWSECONOMICIMPORTANCEOFMONTANASCATTLEINDUSTRY2711.aspx
As we discussed earlier, Family business can seek new sources of income. There is unequalled opportunity for them to profit from the business of saving the earth and it’s wildlife. They’d probably make more money than they do now. They’d probably end up thanking the “enviro’s” for showing them a better way.
And if they are not willing to change then they need to dissapear to safegard the rest of the world from their destructive practices.
Marion, I did read that article,… interesting. However make the statement that “clearly all the wolves in the reintroduction were pure wolf”
It doesn’t surprise me that there was some mixture where they were in close proximity to red wolves and coyotes. I have often thought that some of the coyotes in my area Must be part wolf. We have normal ones as well but we have some enormous coyotes. I have reported them to CDOW but they insist that they are coyotes.
Are you saying that the wolves killed over 100 head of livestock in eastern Montana BECAUSE they were a mixture? What would that have to do with it. I’m just curious.
Marion, are you afraid of my questions? Is it because I proved you wrong about the motel in cooke city?
Marion,
To echo Steve; what about those links I found for you??
Jeffe and steve, not sure which is which, but read the first paragrpah of teh executive summary (I can’t figure out how to cut and paste it). It clearly states that the goal is to remove the wolves from the endangered and threatened species list by achieving and maintaining a minimum of 10 breeding pairs in each of the three areas for 3 years.
That seems pretty clear to me. It also clearly says wolves will not be promoted in Zone 111 due to the high potential for conflict.
No where do I see anything stating that wolves have to be present eveywhere they once lived in the United States before the three states can get out from under the burden of breeding and feeding them.
I refered to the wolves in eastern Montana because they used the breeding of different groups as justification to keep DOW from having to pay for thsoe losses….even though they were forbidden to shoot it unless it was in the act of killing.
I watched the special last night, its pretty amazing. Some absolutely amazing footage. I was pretty amazed that the Slough’s just let the Unknowns take over their den site. I thought they would fight to the death for the site. I thought it was pretty cool, the only thing I did not like was the female narrator. She kinda got on my nerves.
Elkhunter
Elkhunter, that’s what my husband said. I’m not sure if he was referring to my constant comments or the actual narrator.
Marion, once again, the suggestion that delisting and hunting not occur until other states have had a chance to recover wolf populations with the genetically pure stock from Mt, Id, and Wy was MY thoughts on the matter, not an official stand taken by any environmentalists grout. Of course it does not appear in the language of the ESA.
I do hope it is to be considered when making the decision whether or not to delist or hunt. I will contribute my time and effort in that persuit, but it is NOT currnently, to my knowledge a blockade to the planned delisting. But remember Wyoming insisted on the status of “Experimental Nonessential” for the project and the scientific “experiment “has resulted in the knowledge that the wolf has benefited the ecosystem to which it was reintroduced and would benefit other ecosystems as well. So by your own determination, delisting and hunting should not occur until this scientific experimental data is brought to fruition to benefit other areas.
By definition, the term “Experimental nonessential” suggests that the experiment will go forward and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the scientific data gathered by that experiment.
It does not suggest that the experiment will go forward and ruinous activity will occur or continue regardles of scientific evidence denouncing such activity.
I saw a great national geographic special done by Landis last night on bison. I think it was called “thunderbeasts” or something.
I am still wondering if you would support federal reintroduction programs if they would save a species that you value, such as elk.
Actually experimental non-essential is defined as an adjunct in the ESA as being a species introduced outside of their normal range, and not essential to the survival of the species. It also specifies that FWS is not responsible to damages to the existing native species. I believe it also mentions they are not responsible for eradicating the native species of the range where they are introduced.
Please remember there were at least 2 wolves documented in Yellowstone at the time the Canadian wolves were trucked in. In fact a judge put a hold on the whole thing, but Ed Bangs convinced him that 2 were not enough, and that the captured wolves would die if not moved immediately. (I think one did if I’m not mistaken). Were those the only wolves in Yellowsotne despite many sightings, were they perhaps a remnant of the Canis Irremotus, native to Yellowstone and thought extinct? We will never know, and unlike the black tail ferret will never be able to pull it back from the brink.
I cannot think of a species I would support listing right now, it would depend on so many things. Does the population still exist somewhere, and how many? Wolves exist in huge numbers on this continent you know….and in close proximity to us.
What is the value to mankind of the animal? For instance would I want to save mosquitos from extinction so we could continue to suffer from the diseases they carry? NO.
The ESA is more about contol of other people by a few, and making big money for environmental lawyers and CEOs.
Here is a link to more info about the 10j rule. It is pretty legalistic, but I think we can get the gist of it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CEfZDz-NWi0C&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=esa+experimental+%22non+essential%22&source=web&ots=WnSZCm7h4X&sig=dpd8T8r1XMY8XWTJnn5W37GHESQ#PPA93,M1
It’s a double edged sword Marion. You can’t impose the status of “”Experimental ‘ Nonessential”" without accepting the consequences that the adjective “Experimental” implies. I understand that nonessential refers to the fact that the species is or was not at the time considered an vital componant in the ecosystem. However, the experiment proved otherwise. You cannot turn your back on the scientific compiled as a result of that “Experiment”. And don’t forget that it was the opposition to wolf reintroduction that imposed that label into the project. Thanks for the 10j link, I was looking for that.
I understand, Marion. You cannot admit that you would want to use the ESA to save a species that you value because that would unravel 90% of your arguments against the evil enviros trying to protect wolves. Keep ignoring me. Your silence speaks volumes.
Edit…last comment, 5th line should be “scientific data” sorry.
Well gee Steve, did you even read what I wrote? I can think of nothing I would support listing. To me to say list jsut for the fun of it is not smart. I would have to know a specific situation. For instance I value griz very highly and love watching them, but do I think they need continued protection to the point the become a danger to those folks who share a territory with them…no.
I wrote an article for newwest.com about the ESA that expresses a lot of my concerns about it.
http://www.newwest.net/main/article/esa_too_broke_to_fix/
Marion,
this is the direct quote from the federal register that I linked above, which references page 22 sub section 23 of the approved rocky mountain recovery plan. See if you can have your neighbor’s third grader read it to you and be sure to have the part that includes the criteria to CONSIDER selecting to you twice on three consecutive days. We’re going to shoot for retention here.
“The Rocky Mountain
Plan states that if 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3
successive years, gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to
threatened status. It also states that if all 3 recovery areas maintain
10 breeding pair