Scientific Advisors
Steve Fritts, PhD., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service- Dave Mech, PhD., National Biological Survey
- Michael Soule, PhD., Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies, University of California - Santa Cruz
- Brian Miller, PhD.
- Paul Paquet, PhD., Conservation Biology Institute
- Doug Smith, PhD., Yellowstone National Park
- Todd Fuller, PhD., University of Massachusetts
- Lu Carbyn, PhD., Canadian Wildlife Service
- Rolf Peterson, PhD., Michigan Technological University
- Mike Phillips, Turner Endangered Species Fund
- Ralph Maughan, PhD., Idaho State University
I have watched the song and dance for 15 years on the issue of wolves in their native habitat of Southern Colorado. I have been a supporter of Sinapu and will again. Studies show and proof exists that the ecosystem will benefit from their return–and 73% of Colorado’s residents desire it. The government is not representing the people or the best interest of the wildlife and ecosystem. Let’s get the policy changed. Tell me what I can do, who I can write or what cages I should rattle to BRING OUR WOLVES HOME.
Ed Bangs told me just today that we could have some of the wolves that are supposedly causing problems outside the boundaries of Yellowstone Park. Let’s make it happen. I will do whatever I can do to accomplish this important task. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Cathy Bestland
Bring a very big truck and take a LOT of them. Be sure you put them where they can eat your animals though.
I just noticed all of those doctorates are PhDs, not a biologist in the bunch. Explains a lot.
Actually, Marion, the only PhD listed as an advisor above that is not a biologist is Dr. Ralph Maghaun. Please, I know it’s asking a lot, but think before you post. Please.
Marion, have you actually read anything by any of the people listed above? Since when do you care if someone is a biologist, I rarely if ever see you quote actual science. How could you possibly argue that they are not wildlife biologists? They are some of the biggest names in wildlife biology. Are you jealous that they devoted their lives to something besides whining and complaining?
I sugggest you found and anti-wildlife group. Your scientific advisors can be Richard Pombo, Ted Stevens, Dirk Kempthorne, Larry Craig, and any of your other corrupt heroes that you can find… Just make sure you take in a LOT of donations to keep your non-profit going. Something tells me your advisors will have sticky fingers.
If I am not mistaken, I believe a PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy. How does that correlate with biology? There is a big difference between being anti wildlife and being single species advocates. I suspect we are going to find that the wolf introduction has done more damage to wildlife than anything in the last 50 years. It already has in Yellowstone itself.
There is an even bigger difference being anti wildlife and being anti - environementalist control of the people.
You are mistaken. Are you really serious? I am a biologist working with cancer and blood disorders. I work with all PhDs. You can obtain a PhD in virtually any field and it is damned hard work to reach that level. I can assure you that they are biologists. It is this narrow minded thick headed thinking that is so frustrating to everyone who reads this board. If you went to college and obtained a PhD in wildlife biology you would understand that everything you say is propaganda and an exageration. Are you a BsD (doctor of bull….)?
Sinapu and groups like them are not fighting for single species. They are fighting against the culture that drove people to exterminate wolves and other species because that train of thought is harmful to ALL wildlife. If you can’t wrap your head around that, maybe you should post elsewhere because you are just wasting everyone’s time.
Well, Steve, I’m a Registered Nurse, Certified Nurse Midwife, and I never worked with a PhD in any of our work, not even the lab techs. There is a smattering of biology involved in medicine.
Seeing all of those PhDs does help explain how the 300 wolves were supposed to have in 10 years after the introduction turned out to be many times that despite the hundreds that FWS killed. I question how much biology was involved in being so very wrong.
Let’s face it, by the time the first two loads of wolves had pups, the Yellowstone population was hitting close to 100, which was the total Wyoming was supposed to raise. There were already a lot of pups from the first batch by the time they brought the second batch.
Because hunters and fishermen put so much money into wildlife they have done far, far more for wildlife than all of the lawsuits the environmentalists have come up with.
Ranchers have provided critical winter habitat since the very beginning of settlement of the west for wildlife. They just prefer not to keep providing thousand dollar cows for the carnivores.
You have to believe you are doing something wonderful with all of these lawsuits and impositions, if you are not then you are doing nothing but trying to dictate other folks lives. I jsut cannot see that you are doing any good.
MDs who do lab research and publish can also get their PhD. I work with many who posess both. Are you really still arguing that a PhD cannot be a biologist? The people above have a combined probably 200 years of SCIENTIFIC predator-prey observations under their belt. Why do you have to keep trying to diminish their accomplishments by hint that they are not scientists? You are trying to say they are wrong based on your decade of non-scientific wolf viewing. I say again, provide me with scientific evidence of a population of predators who ate themselves into starvation. If you cannot do that, and you continue to to spout off your propaganda, maybe you should not have the privilege of posting here anymore. I am all for debating with people who disagree with me, but there is no debate when you present anything that pops into your head as fact.
And Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in history. He is from wyoming. He is from a state with a population of 500000 and has a lot of power to impose his will over 300 million people. Last I checked, Wyoming has two senators, just like my state. We live in a democracy. The rest of the country will impose its will on wyoming just as wyoming has the power to impose its will over the rest of the country. Now stop your whining…
among other things Marion you appear to have early onset dementia. how many times does it need to be said to you that the number 300; 100 per state, is the minimum number. Please look up the word minimum and TRY to understand what that means.
I am well aware that 100/300 was the minimum that we were supposed to ahve and that was when the delisting was supposed to start. An absolute delisting criteria should be a part of every listing plan, no lawsuits, no arguments, nothing, they are delisted period, when they reach a certain plateau. We simply cannot leave delisting of any species up to the honesty and word of enviros, there is never enough of anything for them….especially control.
I know exactly what minimum means, it means we have to have at least that many, NOT 5 times that many. That was the number that was supposed to get them delisted, below that relisted, which is why the states agreed to have 50% more, but that is not enough either. You seem to be the one having the problem with the meaning of minimum, what is the minimum you are willing to accept ?
You are completely off topic for this thread. This is about you insulting the professional integrity of the individuals listed above. Why is it that no biologists are well known for your theories regarding the environmental devestation caused by wolves? Could it be that your thoughts are not based in science or fact?
One tool of the propagandist is to assign a label to their opposition. Does it make you comfortable to label all wolf supporters “enviros”? I am sure there are many people from all walks of life, hunters included, who love wolves. I am sure there are even wolf supporters who support a wolf hunt. I am sure you wouldn’t like me to label everyone like you as an illiterate redneck.
Let’s see you stated I was demented and didn’t know what minimum meant. When I explained that I sure did know what it meant I am off topic & insulting biologists. Hmmm.
Am I wrong that environmentalists plan to object to delisting wolves, much the same as they are filing objections to the delisting of grizzlies? If there will be no lawsuits unless we drop below the minimum and do nothing about it, then I will apologize.
You have Jeff and I confused. I never said that you are demented. Based on your statements time and again I am pretty sure you are perverting the minimum wolf numbers as maximums. Jeff was mistaken when he accused you of not knowing what minimum meant. That would at least be excusible. What you do is twist the facts knowing full well that those numbers are not maximums. Pretty sad…
Environmentalists object to delisting because not much has been done to ensure that they will not drop to levels that would make them endangered again. Address those and environmentalists will wholeheartedly support delisting. The same can be said of grizzlies. Not much has been done to ensure that they have a stable future (habitat loss mainly) and thus they should be protected until these things are worked out.
The minimum was supposed to be where the wolves were delisted, as well as the level at which they would be relisted if they dropped below that. I can tell you hunting with the tools that would be available today will never get the wolf population down to anything resembling 100/300. The people now living with them know this, but for some reason wolfers do not seem to realize how hard it is to kill wolves. Alaska has a chronic problem with them and they are able to not only use trappers, but airplanes.
As for the grizzlies, their main threat is coming form an over abundance of wolves. They are being pushed out of their normal hunting territory by the mega packs of wolves. The bears are fighting and killing each other and they are also being pushed out into more and more into human inhabited places to try to find food. I’m sure there must have been smarter ideas then trying to increase numbers of 2 major predators in a relatively small area the size of Yellowstone.
As for the loss of habitat, puleeeze! Wyoming just reached a half million residents in the whole state, the population 70 years ago was 200,000. That is not exactly what I would call an exploding growth.
Marion,
Get this straight the minimum recovery goals for the three Northern Rockies states were just that–minimum biological goals by which the program could measure success. Nowhere in that original plan was there a clear discussion of what actually needed to be achieved in order to declare the species recovered under the law.
The law states that the species must be recovered within, “all or a significant portion of its range. Presently, in the three state region, wolves occupy less than 15% pf their range, which is clearly not a significant potion of range. Therefore, the job is not done from a legal standpoint. You and others may not like it, but the Endangered Species Act was actually written to have teeth, to ensure that our stewardship of imperiled species actually results in the sustainable recovery of same.
I disagree, there were supposed to be a minimum of 100/300 wolves for 3 years running, then they were to be delisted. The difference in opinions is exactly why both listing and delsiting criteria need to be laid out in every plan, not subject to interpretation and negotiation. We’ve already agreed to 150/450, people out here are used to keeping their word, and we would maintain that many wolves for you to watch and enjoy.
“Let’s face it, by the time the first two loads of wolves had pups, the Yellowstone population was hitting close to 100, which was the total Wyoming was supposed to raise. There were already a lot of pups from the first batch by the time they brought the second batch.”
Marion, But here you clearly imply that 100 is a maximum for wyoming. “Total wyoming was supposed to raise” implies max.
I love you.
What about the exploding growth of drilling, timber, mining etc industries? Doesnt take a huge population to work in those industries and destroy a state.
The point I was trying to make Steve, was that Wyoming was ready to start the countdown almost from the beginning. Did you know that the delisitng plan calls for Wyoming to guarantee 8 packs in Yellowstone even though we will have no say, or control. It doesn’t matter if there is enough food or not for that many wolves long term, that is what must be.
Timbering is not booming in our state, we are being “allowed” to clean some forests full of beetle kill timber. Mining and drilling has always been a part of our state….always. Wyoming coal kept early day trains running as well as heating homes. I believe the first oil well was drilled in the late 1800s, one of the first in the country. Remember no drill….no drive.
Wow, I didn’t even realize that my letter was going to be posted. I thought it was going to CDOW. I just happened upon it. Nonetheless, I guess everyone knows how I feel. And Marion. I live in an area where we have numerous predators already, bears, coyotes and mountain lions. I have animals too. However, I have gone to the expense and effort to protect those animals,i.e. proper fencing and housing. I bring them in at night. Others in the area who have not taken these precautions suffer loss.
I am also convinced that the reintroduction of the wolf would alleviate some of the coyote problem. A predator more damaging to livestock and pets than wolves. I see absolutely no reason that a minority (the cattle industry) should dictate policy where wolves are concerned when the majority could benefit from their return.
So Marion, why don’t you get your Cattlemen’s association to file suit against Colorado Cattlemen’s association and the CDOW because you are forced to live with wolves that you don’t want when there is exceptional habitat for them in Colorado? We’d both be happy.
Cathy
Or I didn’t realize I was posting to a public blog that is. I thought I was emailing directly to Sinapu not CDOW. I’ve written so many letters and emails and I am just getting the hang of the blog thing. Bear with.
Gee, cat, why should I impose on other people and make things difficult for them?
By the way, please understand the coyote situation, we see more than ever, the wolfers tell us that is because there are less of them. Go figure.
I’ve wondered if an increase in coyote births to offset what wolves do kill might be the reason we see more and that they seem to be preying more and more on sage grouse. I see more killed grouse on leks the last couple of years and more coyote dens close.
Cat, Marion believes that huge multi billion dollar industries are the little guy and they are persecuted and suffering and that we should fight for mining mining companies, the cattle industry, timber companies etc instead of our lands and wildlife. It is no use arguing with her as it goes around and around in circles.
Marion, Could it be that you are seeing more coyotes now because they are localizing near people to avoid wolves? What happened to the large coyote packs in yellowstone that predated the reintroduction?
The following document states that there has been a 90% decline in coyote density in yellowstone since reintroduction. Please, please, please find me something that shows wolves increase the number and density of coyotes in an area.
http://www.bioinfo.rpi.edu/~bystrc/pub/artWolves.pdf
Marion, you are claiming that wolves are an imposition on you, I am just trying to suggest a solution that will make everyone happy. You have too many wolves, we don’t have any. 73% of the population in Colorado says it would be no imposition at all. We are trying to do what we can from this end. I am merely suggesting that perhaps you could do something constructive from that end. Wouldn’t you rather there be a less blood soaked solution to the problem? One that would benrfit other ecosystems as well?
Steve, never in 65+ years of visiting Yellowstone have I seen a “large pack” of wolves. I saw 4 animals together a couple of years ago, the first time I ever saw that many together. It is kind of like the polar bears, the more the locals see, the less the enviros claim there are. I believe they are claiming that the wolves have decreased the coyotes by the same 50% since they hauled them in, and the more we see even patrolling in the Lamar, the less coyotes there are.
Cat, I love the idea that you decry the idea of blood soaked solutions when you are panting for more and more wolves.
I had no say over bringing in wolves, and I have no say over hauling them somewhere else. Please remember 73% of the population of Colorado live in cities and would not be affected by wolves directly, they could only hope to go somewhere close by to watch them slaughter other species, and get to watch the blood soaking.
The rancher families would pay the cost of your entertainment. which I am sure is fine with you, they deserve to be hammered.
The problem with wolves is that their population explodes, they breed like rabbits, and controlling them at all is very difficult. Like all killers they wreak havoc.
Marion,
It is wildlife orgs. that will shoulder the costs of livestock predation. The only killers that wreak havoc are the human killers. Wolves play a VERY important role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. They do not kill indiscriminantly but are selective in their culling of sick and weak of the herds. The only bloodbath that has occurred has been that of human making. This complete anhialation of anything that competes with their ability to profit from still further suffering of the livestock themselves, has adversely affected everyone and everything but the livestock industry.
The human killers have totally thrown the balance off and created unhealthy ecosystems, dying forests and diseased wildlife populations. Do not forget that it is sheep and cattle that a foriegn and exotic species to the rocky mountain ecosystems. All the “blood soaking” occurred to suit their industry. The livestock industry gave no consideration to how the destruction of the ecosystems and wildlife habitat would adversely affect anyone or anything else. Even now that they know better the response is the same.
Well the minority livestock industries have been allowed to dictate policy concerning wildlife and the health of the environment for far to long. We and the planet are suffering for it.
Please have some consideration for the rest of the planet.
Marion, and all–please take a few minutes to read this article. It is in reference to the entire meat producing industry but is especially true of the cattle industry.
http://www.alternet.org/story/12162/?page=entire
Cat, the wolves have been gone from the Rockies for about 100 years, although some were seen from time to time since and in fact in Yellowstone itself, after they were caught in Canada. The wolves have been gone from the east coast for about 300 years. If they are so necessary how come the whole eastern US has not collapsed??????????
Autos, bathrooms, electricity, highways, operas, hiking boots, planes, etc are all “introduced”. I bet your job produces stuff that was not here when earth was created.
No, wildlife.orgs do not carry the burden, that is mostly born by the ranch families that do not get compensated as agreed, for the majority of the wolf kills. For instance when a mega pack eats all of what they kill there is nothing but a skeleton and pieces of hide. It does not matter how many wolf tracks there are if there is not enough of the tissue to show the extreme trauma that is the hallmark of a wolf kill, tough, that family is out about a thousand dollars, which may please you, but makes it difficult to buy health insurance and all of the things that kids need. They pack off lambs and no matter how many babies were there the night before that are missing, nor how many wolf tracks, tough.
If you truly believe that wolves only kill the sick and the week, I have an igloo in Yuma to sell you. They took 13,000 of the elk in Yellowstone in 10 years, I’m quite sure they were not all sick and weak….until a pack of wolves got ahold of them, that is.
And yes, they do surplus kill, thrill kill, or whatever you wish to call it. Once they start they will keep it up as long as they can.
Marion, I have met and talked with the coyote researchers in yellowstone who were there before the reintroduction and I assure you there has been a vast decrease in coyotes and a change in coyote behavior. You dont think the thousands upon thousands of predators and a handful of aerial gunners that are killed on behalf of the livestock industry per year in this country is a blood bath?
Marion, the ecosystems in the east are indeed in trouble. That is exactly why there are reintroduction efforts in many areas. North Carolina, Kentucky, and all of the New England states. Wildlife organizations DO meet the burdon of predation in a more than gernerous manner. There have been very few complaints even from ranchers in this respect. Even when the kills cannot be confirmed as wolf kills, they are compensated. The records speak for themselves in this regard. I have never seen any reports stating that wolves have eaten so much of a carcus that it could not be identified as a wolf kill. And I at least try to read all the data. I do know though, that dogs kill more livestock than do wolves.
However, there have been many abuses to this system by ranchers taking advantage of the compensation program. But in order to keep them placated, the orgs continue to shell out money to them, which, OH BY THE WAY, comes from people like me. There have been reports of people taking horses and tying them out in areas known to be occupied by wolf packs.and leaving them tied while they hunt, only to return and find their animal dead. In most cases it was determined that these horses were old and unmarketable and would only bring $200 to $300 for dog food. What better way to unburden themselves of a nuisance animal and get top dollar for it at the same time. If there is room for abuse in the compensation system, it is on the side of the rancher. But do you see environmentalists making an issue of these instances. No. We make the payments to the whining ranchers to keep them happy while the rest of us try to contribute to saving the planet. All the while the cattle industry is destroying it faster than any other industry out there.
One of the reasons wolves were introduced to the park was to reduce the overwhelming elk population. Which because of generations without an apex predator, had evolved int a more dimwitted, slow, disease proned version. Of course the wolves would easily bring that population into balance. The ones that are left are more highly evolved to survive as they should be. Clearly the wolves are doing their jobs.
Steve C.
You are correct. Some people cannot be disposessed of the old attitudes of: If someone else has something good, steal it, if there is money to be made from the destruction of it, destroy it. If anything gets in the way of profit, destroy that too, no matter who it affects and when they have sucked everything out that the land has to offer, move on to someone elses. Some people just don’t want to be educated to a better way. But what they don’t realize is that what happens to the earth and it’s inhabitants will also happen to all of us.
Yep, I guess only the smart elk will survive the wolf onslaught, the only problem is there may be none that smart. But the scietists making a buncle off of so called endangered speices all assure us that the elk ar thriving because we do NOT see them and the coyotes are nearly gone because we DO see them. I believe the “scientists” also say only the alpha male and female mate, but that does not explain up to 5 litters of pups per pack does it?
Cat dear, I think you read too many enviro boogey man sites, there has been NO instance of anyone tying a horse up to be killed by wolves….some have been run thru pasture fences though, causing big vet bills for their owners. If you have a link to that actually happening, please post it. By the way do you read the FWS wolf report every week?
I seriously doubt you talk to many ranchers. Why do you think they want to trim the wolf numbers down?
The elk numbers right now are some of the lowest in history.
Marion,
Scientists say that USUAlLLY only the alph male and female mate. This is not true when the species is trying to reestablish sustainable numbers The highest number of litters born in one pack in Yellowstone that I am aware of is 3. born to the Druid Peak Pack in 2001 to females #s 40, 42 and 106.
The event of the horse killing was relayed to me by one of the actual owners of the animal. And by the way, another evil of the cattle industry is barbed wire fences. Remove those and you wont’ have injuries because of them.
The elk numbers are exactly where they should be. And the ones in Yellowstone are healthy and perhaps smarter too. I often wonder why ranchers want to kill wolves given they are compensated for loss and that by now they MUST be at least partially informed as to the contribution the wolf makes to the ecosystem which lends me to believe that they do it for the blood thirsty fun of it. Or, that they just don’t care about how their actions affect the land everyone else on the planet as long as their profit margins remain intact.
Marion, you are wrong about my speaking to ranchers, I have been in the horse industry all of my life. I know many ranchers. Some of them, fortunately are beginning to see the error of their ways. Not all by any means, but the times, they are a changing. Those willing to adapt will survive with their businesses intact..
Marion, please stop spreading your BS and tell me WHY DIDNT ELK GO EXTINCT BEFORE MAN CAME IN AND KILLED ALL THE WOLVES????!!!!!! WHY HAVENT SMALLER UNGULATES GONE EXTINCT? YOUR ARGUMENTS MAKE NO SENSE! DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION?!!!!!! WITHOUT WOLVES ELK WOULD NOT EXIST AS THEY DO TODAY!
I appologize to all but marion for using caps lock but she keeps spouting off the same filth over and over without answering these simple logical questions.
Marion sweetie, it would help if you educated yourself to some of the issues that are being discussed. Otherwise you come off narrowminded and obtuse. Participants in this blor are trying to help others understand that there is a better way to deal with these issues than to slaughter the problem. Which in the end causes more problems than you had to start with. Maybe not innitially for those who are benefiting from the destruction to our lands but eventually it will catch up with them. It is necessary however, to be able to see beyond the end of your nose. Again, don’t you want to be part of the solution? Don’t you care about the land and the health of the ecosystems?
It seems as though you see no other solution than more slaughter of wolves that are an integral componant of the ecosystem. If that is the case why do you participate in a blog that is dedicated to restoring the balance and returning wolves and all carnivores to their natural habitat?
Steve C.
I think it’s just a product of the environment. It’s what happens to a species when there is no apex predator around. They become slow witted and unhealthy. Which means they’ll die out soon. I suggest we ignore it.
What I’d like to know is what can I do personally to help the chances of getting the wolf reintroduced to Colorado. Clearly there is little chance of them migrating here considering the delisting to occur in Wyoming. In my view, this renders useless, the current “guidelines” for protection in Colorado. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can move reintroduction into the realm of possibilities. Is anyone out there from Colorado?
Cathy
Cat, I will have to go back and look to be sure, but either the Druids or the Sloughs had 5 litters this spring. Please give me an approximate date of a tied up horse kill and I can go back to the FWS reports and get all of the details.
There have been two of the ranchers who were pretty verbal about how THEY could live with the wolves. that lasted until it hit their pocket books, then it wasn’t so nice after all. they insisted that they were not being hypocrites, but they couldn’t stand the loss. One of them is the ranch that has been discussed on Ralph’s page recently. The other was a couple of years ago.
As for the elk/wolf situation, as I have posted dozens of times over the years, a grand total of 136 wolves were killed in Yellowstone spanning a period of 42 years. the records are there, you can check for yourself. 80 of those wolf bounties were paid on pups, so they may have been anything from German shepherds to coyotes. That would be the reason that elk did very well with those few wolves. President Roosevelt stated in 1903 that coyotes were the only canid present in any numbers in Yellowstone.
The wolves are not preying nearly so heavily on the deer because the packs are so big that they need more meat. It is estimated by Smith and Bangs that a wolf kills approximately 2 elk per month. Do the numbers at 175 wolves. Besides that there are several hundred grizzlies and probably thousands of black bears, they have not been counted for over 20 years. Lions add to it. This is situation that is unique to Yellowstone and is strictly an idea by man to perk things up for the tourists.
You both would be amazed how much I have studied the whole situation, but I do try to find the facts in journals, scientific papers, etc, not off a website with a specific goal in mind.
Are you really sure that anyone should have the right to destroy a legal industry and the homes of those who work in it just because they do not like it? Would that apply to you too?
Marion,The conversation I had with the hunter took place last year, so I am asuming that the demise of the horse would have been the year before. I checked the stats for that year and there were 2 horses killed in Montana. I am assuming his was one of them. I know of no further records of the incident.
The rancher responsible for allowing his ranch hand to torture and kill the female wolf and who once and still says he believes wolves and cattle ranching can co-exist is a multimillionair entrepreneur guest rancher, from Californis who is going to loose far more money because of the wolf killing than if every one of his cows were eaten by wolves. That is why he appologised profusely for the killing of the wolf in his subsequent press release.
None of your facts either supports your comments as to why elk were not wiped out by wolves before the wolves were extirpated or have any bearing on the fact that elk and coyote populations are finaly, now coming into balance. A fact that you for some reason cannot grasp even after all the scientific data that supports this. Niether can you show that wolves, if left to their own devises would reduce elk populations to an unacceptable numbers. Are you forgetting that wolves have a built in auto adjust birthing rate that adjusts to the amount of prey available. Or did you even know this.
I am flabergasted that you even suggest that the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone was done to “perk things up for the tourists” . YOU are the one getting information from websites with a specific goal in mind.
No one is talking about destroying anyone’s industry or homes. We are trying to get them to restructure those industries so that THEY do not destroy anymore of what belongs to all of us. If they can’t do this, maybe they should get into another industry. And if I were destroying what belonged to everyone else that WOULD apply to me.
Please answer my question. Why do you participate in a blog dedicated to restoring the balance by returning wolves and other predators if you are so dead set against it? Do you really believe that our ecosystems are better off without them ? Do you really think that all things are not connected? Do you really think that one industry can monopolize and destroy all our resources and not expect people to try to stop it? How can anyone be that selfish or stupid?
I just read the wolf report puppy count for thei spring. The Duid pack had one litter. the Slough Creek pack had 2. There were no other mutiple litters born in any packs. There was a record of 11 pups born to the alpha in the Oxbow pack. One other female in that pack had 1 pup but it died.
Marion, why is it that you never present these “facts” that you read in the literature? And why is it that you can’t give me a reason that elk did not go extinct with an uncontrolled wolf population before man decided to control/ kill wolves? You make yourself reallty bad when you completely ignore and refuse to address these issues that arrise from your arguments…
I appologize for my tirade but when I heard the suggestion that wolves were returned to Yellowstone as a tourist attraction, I lost it.
Does anyone know how to go about organizing a wolf education meeting for the public? Who to contact? So forth.
Cathy
First of all I post on these blogs hoping facts may have some effect. We are fighting for our homes, our land, and our way of life. That to me is worth fighting for.
Now for a few of the facts that I have “misrepresented”:
Coyotes,original claim by FWS that wolves have removed 50%, your claim of 90%. Science Daily quote”Coyote densities were 33 percent lower in wolf-abundant sites in the Tetons. Similarly, coyote densities declined 39 percent in Yellowstone National Park after wolves were recently reintroduced there.”end quote.
quote”Most surprising to me was Oxbow with 12 pups, eleven still alive. This was an odd double liter — one female with eleven pups, one female with one (which has died). He believed that eleven pups is a record sized litter for a gray wolf.
Slough Creek Pack, which had multiple litters, had the high count in the Park with 13 pups.
The Agates had 9 pups.
Druids had 6. Delta had 6. The Hayden Valley Pack, for the first time had an average sized litter — 6 pups. That’s now down to five. In the past, their litters were very small.” end quote
June 5 report from Ralph’s page:
quote:”Slough Creek Pack may have six litters!!
June 5th, 2007 — Ralph Maughan
Post 1181
Kathie Lynch just sent me her Memorial Day wolf watching report, actually it is a couple days old because I went driving, hiking, and camping in the Beaverheads/Lemhis on, and near the Idaho/Montana border. No wolf observations, but lots of elk and pronghorn.
I want to thank “BE” for watching my web page in the interim.
Below is her report, including the fact that the new alpha male of the Slough Creek Pack may have impregnated essentially of of the pack’s females. The Sloughs had become an all female pack. That certainly makes up for last year when they lost their pups to the “Unknown Pack.”
If there are any other “facts” I can provide for you, let me know.
The fact of the matter is elk did not go extinct because there was nobody trying to create their own utopia by raising predators and giving them every protection they can. Now, we have those so immersed in their own vision of what is “right” they are willing to throw the natural system completely out of balance to make that vison come true.
At least the early settlers that might have thrown the balance out by killing too many predators were doing it for survival, the most elemental of instincts. You are destroying the balance of nature for your own vanity…not terribly noble, especially when you want to control other people’s property in the process. Destroy ranching and you will destroy critical habitat for wildlife.
Oh my God, Marion your facts just proved points made by Steve C and myself. There were no packs that produced 5 litters as you claimed. All of the wolf pup stats you just posted prove MY point. The only one who is throwing natural systems completely are those who removed the wolf in the first place. Your stats on coyotes prove your earlier claims that they are on the increase false. You should do your research BEFORE presenting it as fact.
Your idea of balance is having no wolves??? How is that balanced? Do you actually believe that you can remove an integral part of an ecosystem (like the wolf) and expect NOT to have adverse effects on that ecosystem?
It is very paranoid to believe that anyone is threatening your homes or your lands. The ranching way of life does need to be adjusted in a way that is not so destructive to the land, it’s wildlife and rest of creation.
Do you not think that other industries have had to make adjustments because of information that their practices are harmful to the rest of the world? Of course they have. Is ranching industry so priviledged that they do not have to comply with regulations that protect wildlife, the land and all of us in the end? Ranchers could easily make changes that would allow them to profit from environmentalists efforts.
The John Duffield economic report states thati in 2005, wolves contributed over 70 MILLION dollars to local communities in the GYE. Do you wish to destroy their income? Why are ranchers so priviledged that they don’t have to modify their lifestyles to be less environmentally destructive like the rest of us have had to do?
Cat, no use pointing out the amount of money that wolves bring in to marion. She discounts the economists who do these studies (as she does with all scientists who prove her wrong). I have mentioned the benefits of wolves to the economy time and time again and she always responds about some restaurant that she saw on the news that went out of business in gardiner. To her, this proves that wolves have destroyed the economy.
I am going to be in yellowstone thanksgiving week and I am going to make it a point to not spend one dime in wyoming.
Marion, you said before that there are more coyotes in areas with wolves, now you say there is a 33% drop. Get your facts straight.
How are homes threatened by wolves? If ranchers would adjust and change their practices a bit their businesses should be safe. What way of life are you fighting for? Rape and pillage the land with no oversight, adaptation or responsibility?
I ask for the third time, why didn’t ungulate populations go extinct before wolves were managed/ killed? Why arent they extinct in alaska? YOU CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION BECAUSE IT DISPROVES 100% OF YOUR CLAIMS!
Ya know, these claims of fighting for their homes and way of life and the land seem vaguely familiar. Oh yeah…wasn’t it from Native Americans making the same claims about the same lands????? Too bad they don’t have them now. At least those lands and the wildlife therein would not have been destroyed.
So yes, those that destroy the land (i.e. the cattle industry) do not deserve to have it. I say give back to the Native Americans from whom it was stolen. So please, everyone, stop eating beef.
I posted this and several other links earlier this morning, and it doesn’t show. Before I do the others, I’ll just link this:
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/slough-creek-pack-may-have-six-litters/
The Agates seem to be using the same general den area around Antelope Creek as they did last year. This is great news for summer wolf watchers. Last year they were just about the only show in town and delighted all by staying in view until late summer. They are thought to have two litters, with perhaps 11-12 pups total. The mothers are probably alpha 472F and beta 471F. After his injury last winter, now 10-year-old former alpha 113M has handed over the reins to his son, four-year-old 383M. I didn’t get to see 113M, but he was around. His new role seems to be that of beloved grandpa.
……………………….
Speaking of the new Slough alpha male, he evidently jumped into the role with such gusto that his new family might include up to six litters! Only one of his seven females (a two-year old black, who also survived the 2005 epidemic) did not appear to be pregnant and did not den. She was often seen hunting with him in the Jasper Bench area while the other females were home tending the dens. The probable mother wolves include alpha 380F, 526F, 527F, the gray “Sharp Right,” and two uncollared black two-year-olds. They all look very thin, so the two providers may be having a hard time
Marion. As the final report shows, there was only 2 litters born to the Slough Creek pack not the 5 that you claimed.
There is one thing about your post that I don’t understand… why haven’t elk gone extinct before humans controlled the wolf population? Can you not read my question? Do you want me to draw you a picture? Ignoring it won’t make it go away…
Steve, are yoy going wolf watching? I’m jealous. I went about 3 weeks ago but did not get to see any as there was a snowstorm and we were told some of the roads in the park were closed. Did not have 4WD. So I did not want to risk it. I did however connect with some “wolf people”. I plan another trip in April. Like you, I will only support the restaurants, shops and motels that clearly indicate that they are pro-wolf. I encourage others to do so as well. I ask for and buy only wolf related books and souviniers and try to disuade every visitor I see from supporting the cattle industry by their eating of beef. It may not have much effect but I know some listen. And that is the secret. Education. Hopefully these ones will return home, do their own research and begin to put pressure on their congressmen to do something on a Federal level to protect the wolves.
First of all to answer Steve, as I have pointed out several times, prior to man’s intervention there were far fewer wolves in Yellowstone, the predator population we now have is artificially inflated and protected, protecting predators is a new phenomenon, one our ancestors would never believe.
There is a vast difference between plentiful and extinct. If you read early trapper diaries and the Lewis & Clark diaries, you will soon see there were places where there was little or no game to be found. Not that you will believe it.
If someone can look at 6 and see 2 , there is not much else to say.
Everyone who owns land today has paid money for it, no matter what tribe might have had it in the early days. Now you may feel we should have to give up our homes and give it back to the Indians, do you feel you should do the same? Or are you too special to abide by the same rules?
The fact is there is more wildlife in the west now than in the early days, and that is in large part due to ranchers, not that you can accept that, it would make those trying to take our land look like the greedy people who want something for nothing.
I am not just talking about yellowstone here. You talk about wolves as if they can completely destroy an ungulate population and it has not happened anywhere on earth. Why havent all of the ungulates in canada and alaska been driven to extinction? It simply doesn’t happen.
Lewis and clark’s journey and even wolf counts from the turn of the century were hardly as accurate as counts today. It is very conceivable that without spotting scopes/ helicopters/ radio collaring/ etc. wolf counts could be vastly underestimated. Hell, if i had no access to a spotting scope or to wolf radio tracking information, i could probably spend a year in yellowstone and see little more than wolf sign.
By the way, I said I SEE more coyotes and am told that is a sign of less coyotes.
Try to pin one of those who talk about how much money the wolves have brought in about were that money is specifically. I have pointed out on other sites that 2 towns primarily benefit form the wolves, Gardiner and Cooke City, both in Montana. Neither has built new motels since the wolves came nor new restaurants. Gardiner did have one restaurant close though because they no longer had the winter business for the late elk hunt.
There may be some folks who come to Jackson to see wolves, more to see elk, swans and ski though.
If you can find specifics on where all of that money is coming from and where it goes please share.
I can tell you that every non compensated livestock kill does cost the state in tax revenue as well as the rancher. Then there is extra personnel to manage the wolves as well as the Griz, that costs the state too.
Sadly when there are no longer the elk in Yellowstone to feed all of those wolves the wolves will go out onto ranches. That will mean no wolves for the enviros to watch and that will of course be somebody else’s fault, not those that had to have so many that prey species could not continue.
Cat if you are so expert on how to ranch, please feel free to purchase a ranch and a few hundred of those thousand dollar cattle, and they will be your to feed to the wolves if you so desire.
Marion, Wolves are protected today from people (ranchers) who would slaughter them as they did over the past 150 years. Before Europeans moved into the area, who were the wolves to be protected from? So does it make it right that you are paid money for land today when it was stolen from the Indians? And yes if I were responsible for as much destruction to the land as the cattle industry has caused, I too, would deserve to have my land taken away and returned to the Indians. Fortunately I have more respect for the land than that.
Your final claim that there is more wildlife now that in early days contradicts your claim that wolves have caused the reduction in elk populations. Make up your mind. Would those trying to take your land look as greedy as you when you stole it from the Indians?
Marion, you do missunderstand one thing, I do not support taking away privately owned land and returning that to Native Americans. I am referring to the public lands that have been trashed by the constant overgrazing that has resulted in destruction to the watersheds and wildlife habitat. Those lands SHOULD be returned to the Native Americans from whom they were stolen. No one cares if you destroy your own land.
Cathy
Ranchers are NOT slaughtering the wolves, I doubt they have killed a total of 2 dozen over the last 12 years. FWS is killing them the way the environmental groups and FWS came together to put the plan together. Those who insisted on artificially introducing them are the ones responsible for the killings. The wolves were living in wild areas of Canada when they were captured and brought down to breed and travel to ranches.
The public lands are not being destroyed, how many of those lands have you visited? The Big Horns are covered with wildflowers every spring, and the cows are still in belly deep grass when it is time to come home. On top of that if you would jsut drive on back country roads where there are ranches, you would see an abundance of wildlife on private land. They need the lowlands in winter jsut as much or more than cattle need high country in summer.
Cat, your home has destroyed the area of what was once wilderness every bit as much as mine has. Cattle didn’t destroy it.
Every cow that is sold provides meat for at least two families, every dairy cow provides milk for countless families. We are the best fed most comfortable people to ever inhabit the earth, I cannot understand those who feel compelled to make things bad for other people. If eating today depended on what you were able to go out and raise or find, things would look much different to you. Meanwhile I need to get busy and make relish out of the last of my green tomatoes and chilis instead of arguing with someone who wants to turn the clock back 500 years for other people. I presume you want to keep your warm house, electricity and computer, to say nothing of your indoor plumbing.
Here we go… explain these away.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/facts_photos/photos/before_after/bapages/baphotos_30.html
Grass always dries out by September except in irrigated pastures and lawns. It is called cured when it turns golden like this. Cerainly you can see the ground is not grazed to the ground. and they were careful not to get close enough to see just how short of tall it is. There is not one thing to even indicate that it had been grazed.
I am working on photos and will try to get some that you can open to see the cows in fall grass….clear up to their bellies.
Ol Jon is one of the wildest radicals around, unfortunately he is able to get soem things pushed thru by picking his judges.
Marion, therer is no question but that cattle have ruined public lands by trampling and destroying watersheds, introducing a host of noxious weeds and requiring the most destructive devices ever concieved, barbed wire, to lace the countryside. All this apart from the horrific poisoning deaths of untold millions of wildlife of every species in order to rid the threat from one. All this to suit the cattle industry. It’s time to return those lands to those who can manage it properly, Native Americans.
Oh yes, cattle did destroy the land where my home is. I am still dealing with wildfire mitigation and noxious weeds, all caused by overgrazing.
I have seem anti-wolf zealots post pictures of dead elk with no known cause of death and say authoritatively that they are surplus wolf kills. And I present before and after pics of trampled grazed land and you say they don’t show grazing… How do you just explain everything away? Do you handle all aspects of your life so irrationally or just politics?
Check these out too, Marion. Notice the ground has been completely razed by grazing and notice too, the damage to the streams and drainages. Think cows had anything to do with this?
hhttp://www.westernwatersheds.org/copperbasin/tour_9_26_07/index.html
That link doesnt work, should be http, not hhttp. Why is it that yellowstone is full of bison and elk, decidedly cowlike, and the lamar valley doesn’t look like a mess like that? Could there be something in yellowstone preventing the wild grazers from standing in one place while eating and pooping?
Marion, I will save you some typing since I know what your predictable response will be… “Those pictures are taken by radicals! They don’t show grazing! They show normal fall grass! The enviros are stealing our way of life!!!!”
Try copying it and pasting it in the address bar. If that doesen’t work, go to WWP home page and on the left side click on Copperbasin allotment photos.
Got it to work. Thanks for the link!
Ok, look at this one and see if you find any degrading of the creek here. Look at how tall the grass is.
http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/88094237/medium