Spokane7
53°
October 28, 2010 in Idaho
Gridlock on wolves alienates key allies
Endangered listing riles hunters, ranchers
An impasse over wolf management in the Northern Rockies is alienating hunters and ranchers, groups whose support is crucial to the canny predators’ long-term success in the region, experts say.
Many are fuming at wolves’ recent return to the Endangered Species List in Idaho and Montana. The action canceled public wolf hunts in both states this fall, even though wolf counts in Idaho and Montana far exceed the minimum federal recovery goals of at least 30 breeding pairs and more than 300 wolves.
“We had an agreement that lots of people signed off on. And now they feel betrayed,” said Dan Pletscher, a wildlife biology professor at the University of Montana.
Idaho had a minimum of 843 wolves at the end of 2009, and Montana had 524.
“We get above the federal goal, and that’s still not enough,” said Elaine Allestad, a Montana sheep rancher.
The mounting frustration is bad news for wolves, said Pletscher, who predicts a rise in illegal killings and potential weakening of the Endangered Species Act.
Idaho and Montana congressional delegations are sponsoring bills to return management of their wolf populations to their states. It’s politically expedient, Pletscher said, but that type of legislative maneuvering ultimately undermines the science-based process in the Endangered Species Act.
“It gives Congress ideas,” Pletscher said. “The next time a developer has a problem with (an endangered) butterfly… legislation gets tacked onto a spending bill.”
Rural residents’ frustration is real, said Tony McDermott, an Idaho Fish and Game Commission member from the Sandpoint area.
“I think the wolf issue has made a mockery of the Endangered Species Act. It doesn’t work,” McDermott said. “It’s tied up in the courts because of a pure technicality.”
In August, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy said the federal government couldn’t delist wolves in Idaho and Montana until Wyoming adopts an approved plan to manage its wolves. The ruling rescinded state management of wolves granted to Idaho and Montana in 2009.
Idaho and Montana have appealed Molloy’s ruling, and Wyoming is challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s stance that its wolf management plan is inadequate. But a court resolution is probably two years away, McDermott said.
That’s too long for some struggling elk herds, he said, not to mention rural communities that profit from hunters’ retail spending.
“Our deer, moose and elk are Idaho’s livestock,” McDermott said. “They should be protected.”
Re-establishing wolves in the Northern Rockies is particularly controversial in rural areas, acknowledged Ed Bangs, Western wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It contradicts many homesteading families’ stories of settling the West, said Bangs, who frequently hears comments like: “My grandfather shot the last wolf in this drainage.”
Bangs said people’s tolerance for wolves typically erodes with close contact. Watching a nature special on wolves or hearing howls during a wilderness trip is one thing, he said. Spotting them in your pasture is another.
Last year, the Bonner County prosecutor’s office dropped misdemeanor charges against a rural homeowner who shot and killed a 75-pound wolf that circled his house south of Priest Lake, ambled off and returned to watch the homeowner’s dog through a window.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials said the wolf didn’t appear to be a threat. The prosecutor’s office disagreed, saying it was unlikely that a jury would convict the homeowner.
“Most people are proud to live in a place where we still have grizzly bears and wolves,” said Pletscher, the University of Montana professor. “The question is, how many?”
Suzanne Stone is the Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife. The group is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit that reinstated federal protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana.
“We’re not asking for thousands of wolves,” Stone said. “Defenders isn’t anti-hunting. We want to see wolves managed by the states … But for us to manage this population down to the bare minimum is unacceptable.”
The debate over wolf numbers could soon move to Washington, where a third wolf pack was confirmed this year. The state is crafting a wolf management plan.
Dan Braunberger, a hunter from Chattaroy, Wash., said he called the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife after counting 12 wolves in a pack in Pend Oreille County. He spotted the wolves Oct. 17 near Monumental Mountain, where he hunts for mule deer. Two of the wolves had radio collars.
“I don’t have a problem with wolves,” Braunberger said. “I have a problem with … not managing them.”
Hunters are typically allies in conservation efforts, said Tim Aldrich, president of the Montana Wildlife Federation. Their support is important, he said, so it’s unfortunate that gridlocked wolf management is alienating hunters.
“It would be great to have success under the Endangered Species Act,” Aldrich said, “so we don’t have to fight to protect the act itself.”
Miners to return to Lucky Friday 
circle8 on October 28 at 12:57 a.m.
The federal court ruling of two months ago stated a wolf could not be killed even IF it was killing livestock or household pets. The existing wolves are having a big impact on Mule Deer, Elk and Moose. What are we supposed to do allow the wolf to kill us before anything will be done? Hey Judge if a wolf attacks my wife or myself will you give me permission to kill it? If not how about talking a hike in the mountains with me? Maybe we will see a couple of them. The wolf reproduction rate is high very high and their mortality is low. You have to cull the excess or the targets may be our loved ones, both two legged and four legged. The decision was another moronic judge making law.
Itsgodswill on October 28 at 9:57 a.m.
How is it moronic? Trying to keep a species thriving is stupid? What is REALLY moronic is bringing hypothetical questions into the mix, just to get your way such as “WHAT IF they kill _______?” Well, they haven’t. So, no need to bring it up. Like i’ve said before, HUMANS are more likely to “target” your loved ones, so maybe it’s time to cull the excess of humans, too? Between Idaho and Montana, there are over 2,000,000 humans existing, many of which can, have, and will cause harm to others, and you’re more focused on the what..Less then 1,400 wolves between TWO STATES that might hurt a loved one? Now THAT’S moronic.
nowolves on October 28 at 2:21 p.m.
The latest developments regarding the wolf has people turning on this animal big time. I was at one time in favor of having wolves in northern WI. That has changed after researching what was behind some of the latest developments and seeing the true effects of having wolves. I’ve followed the clam lake elk herd (in WI) for years & it is quite evident what is holding back the herd… Last year the growth of the herd was at a standstill because of wolves. If they can be the documented biggest effect on mortality for that herd. There is no reason why they are not effecting the deer population in other areas of our state where wolves are over populated!
Itsgodswill on October 28 at 3:02 p.m.
The same can be flipped around onto humans, nowolves..The wolf population would be much greater then what it is today if it weren’t for humans “holding them back”. How is it “fair” for humans to kill whatever they want, but when a natural predator does what it needs to in order to survive, we’re ready to eliminate the entire species just so WE can continue hunting and have no “threats” to our precious livestock/safety (which is no where NEAR as big of a problem as people make it out to be). Something is a bit goofy with this logic. Human beings are so damn arrogant that they think they can just eliminate whatever they don’t appreciate or want around for their own selfish reasons.
Another thing, Nowolves: I’ve seen a few of your stupid arguments as to why we should be killing these beautiful animals, and you just sound ridiculous, stooping as low as to bringing GOD into it. Predators are a natural part of life. Eliminating life for fun is absolutely NOT a natural part of life and as far as im concerned, hunters deserve to be right in line with humans who kill other humans.
ImmerTreue on October 28 at 3:20 p.m.
Interesting fix Otter has gotten himself into. Thumb your nose at the Feds while grandstanding about wolves, “Idaho is out of the wolf monitoring business”, and then guess what… His office was late/lax and missed the deadline in applying for 10 million dollars in farm aid, from guess who? The Federal government. Time to suck-up now Butch.
Ya, ya, ya, the wolves are having an impact on elk. After 60 years of no predator avoidance and getting fat, waiting to get shot from someone a quarter mile away, the elk must begin to adapt to the situation, whether in the Northern Rockies or WI.
Deer in Wisconsin, ~28,000 deer/auto collisions last year. I’m taxing my memory, but I think as many as 14 people were killed in Wisconsin due to these collisions. Wolf people kills - 0.
Lyme disease, Deer ticks carry it. Wisconsin Lyme disease rates are increasing. Studies have shown if deer numbers are decreased, Lyme disease rates go down. Wolves, you are more than welcome to help us out.
Itsgodswill on October 28 at 3:20 p.m.
And when I say “hunters deserve to be right in line with humans who kill other humans” what I mean is those hunters who hunt for fun. If a hunter is hunting for food, by all means, that is the same thing as fulfilling natural predatory needs. Hunting for fun or just for the destruction of an incredible animal is disgusting and I hope that you end up where you belong..being mauled by wolves for an eternity ; )
nowolves on October 28 at 5:36 p.m.
Once again Immer uses whole state statistics. He does this quite frequently on these postings. What do the car kills around Madison, Milwaukee & the Fox Cities have to do with wolves. The places where wolves are, are not the problem with car kills. The Metro areas (where the wolf/deer huggers harbor the deer) have the highest concentration of car kills! The Wisconsin DNR has set up many of these “Metro” units in the last decade to help curb the deer in those specific areas. Wolf/deer huggers are their own worst enemies in regards to car kills & Immer twists it to be something different or all the Sportsman fault! Typical Immer!
nowolves on October 28 at 5:54 p.m.
itsgodswill where do you get this stuff…..do you truly believe the junk you spew. “Spirituality” Another person’s god may ask you while you’re at the pearly gates.,” why did you support the wolf.? Did you not know that I created this animal to keep game in check in the absence of man! Wasn’t it clear that this animal kills in a horrific manner…. you would rather that the wolf kill other animals in this way instead of the hunter. What was your issue with the hunter, were you a vegetarian? Was it OK for you to eat the sirloin steak, yet not OK for the hunter to put food on his table? You would rather that the wildlife be subject to the 24 x 7 x 365 killing of the wolf (worse than a Michael Vick dog fight) than the 4 week daytime hunting of the sportsman! ” itsgodwill, I’m very very comfortable with my spirituality and what my god will say to me at the pearly gates, I may be wrong …… but either way you’re wrong unless you are a vegetarian & human race was built to be vegetarian!
ImmerTreue on October 28 at 9:15 p.m.
nowolves, better known as Reality 22 on many of his posts uses two name to spread his credo. True, there are more deer/auto collisions in the more populated counties of Wisconsin, but if you look at year by year trends in Wisconsin counties, state wide, deer salvage records have gone down with increase of wolf population through the state. So what if I used state totals. Deer salvages in counties across Wisconsin, rural counties included, where the wolves are in greater numbers, trends are showing a decrease. That’s the point I made. Wolves are good for Wisconsin.
Nice to know that I’m a deer hugger now. Where in my post did I say anything negative about the true sportsmen? You’ve posed as the great humanist in posts elsewhere. You’re the one who brought up Wisconsin. You’re the one who theorizes the wolf having a negative impact on WI deer population. All I did was bring up two ways in how the wolf could be helping out in Wisconsin. You’re the individual with the imagination!
Original point of my post was Otter burning bridges in Idaho, and he forgot what side of the river he was on.
nowolves on October 28 at 9:35 p.m.
Immer, the article - Gridlock on wolves alienates key allies does not mention Otter once…… yet you wanted to change the subject to him. The article was more about the loss of support that is happening around the country for the wolf. The article was about how the sportsman & rancher/ farmer are important to the success of the animal. They are having huge problems with the Mexican gray wolf …..because of lack of support from the above mentioned.
Expect more of the same the longer this goes on! The way things are going here in Wisconsin we will first get delisted in a year or two then we will have to wait another five years before any meaningful management will start…..support will be nil by that time. You can thank yourself, donnie molloy , depletors of wildlife, H$U$ & your cronies for that!
.
ImmerTreue on October 29 at 6:43 a.m.
Idaho is part of the article. Butch Otter is the governor of Idaho. Otter’s rhetoric has not helped the situation, and just recently he has begun to back track a bit. I wonder why.
You’re the one who brought up Wisconsin. I could say that Wisconsin has nothing to do with the article either.
Thank myself? In almost every post I have put up, I have said yes I am pro-wolf, and I have also said I am for wolf control. I’ll say it again here.
You only see what you want to see, for every constructive thing you say, your childish references to Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations that promote conservation negate the good in your comments..
Cpottz on October 29 at 7:43 a.m.
After reviewing all the comments here, all I can say is that the Wolf still needs to be a part of the ecosystem. But the real question is how many? Most hunters these days have no problem with there being a wolf. The problem is when the wolf begins to effect the hunting. Wolf lovers I understand hate this, but it is much more important for states like MT, WY, ID to invest in keeping their ungulate population where it needs to be. Too much money is involved. Yes, I said it, money. If someone wants to let wolves run unchecked in this world maybe they can cut a check to all these states for the loss of income from hunters for the next 50 years. Oh wait, no one in the world has that type of money. The states have done all that was asked of them as far as managing the wolf to numbers requested by the feds. Now the feds, being pushed by defenders who think the numbers now just aren’t enough relist the wolves. Why doesn’t the population in Canada come into perspective here? Is the grey wolf endangered? Hell no, over 7500 in Canada alone. I don’t mind having wolves in the ecosystem, but I also will not give up hunting and camping so that the wolf population can explode.
P.S. I love a good steak. And if a wolf is eating a calf, and the farmer wants to shoot it? Good for him. Like this article says, without the support from hunters, the wolf is doomed here in the states.
Itsgodswill on October 29 at 10:01 a.m.
Nowolves: Again, I don’t need hypothetical questions or situations, this time you’re trying to tell me what somebody elses god is going to tell me at the pearly gates? I don’t care what you have to say about any god, because 1. it has no place in this conversation and 2. it’s HYPOTHETICAL. You can know your spirituality all you want, but you have NO idea why animals were created or what your god will say to you. For all you know, you could be condemned for supporting the killing of the animal (I can only hope), so lets leave all the hypothetical, made up BS in our own minds.
It’s a pretty bold statement to flat out tell me that I am wrong..But one thing that I have going for me is that you said “UNLESS you’re vegetarian..” and coincidentally, I am vegetarian and luckily for me, I do believe that human beings were not designed to be meat eaters (different story but if you’d really like to know my reasons, by all means ask and I will tell), but that has nothing to do with why I feel the way I do. Even when I ate meat, I sure as hell didn’t eat wolf..And I’ve personally never seen wolf meat on someones table, so that leads me to believe that once killed, the animal is totally wasted. That’s the difference between hunting for FOOD and hunting for FUN.
As for the 24 X 7 X 365 killing of the wolf? let’s look at the figures again..1,400 wolves across two states..And you think the wolf does absolutely nothing but killkillkill all day long? My step dad used to hunt quite often in ID, and he never failed to kill something when he went out..Seems to me that there is still plenty of game to be shot..As I already said, human beings kill more frequently, kill all species, are the absolute most malicious creature on this planet, and on top of that, will not rest until everything is out of it’s way. If an animal kills a human, it’s almost immediately killed for being too violent (duhh let’s see, we caged up a wild animal, I wonder if it’ll be tame..) but then humans think they can go out and kill whatever they want and it’s supposed to be fine..It is man who is excessively violent. That, my friend, is fact. The one thing that makes me happy about this is that the law is on the side of wolves, me, and all the other supporters and I hope that anybody who gets caught killing a wolf has to pay the price in full.
Cpottz on October 29 at 1:00 p.m.
ItsGodsWill,
While I think you have a good point with some of the things you are saying, like spirituality having nothing to do with this issue. However, I do not agree that human’s were made to be vegetarians. If this were a fact we would have mouths like horses and cattle. Tooth structures at the very least. We have teeth that are made for both ripping, tearing, and chewing. So just in our tooth structure alone we are made to eat meat and vegetables alike.
Once again I think people are jumping too far to one side of a line regarding wolves. Wolves have a place in the ecosystem, however not unchecked. For centuries the ungulate population has been kept in check by the FWP. Too many deer, moose, elk, antelope, etc in an area, tags are increased for a year or two to allow hunters to thin the herd. Just the opposite if not enough. Less hunting tags. Either way, wolves need to be managed in this same way. Too many? Offer more tags. But then we arrive back to the issue of how many is too many?
The answer lies in how much it effects the ungulate population and survival rates, and this must be left to those who are involved with the actual statistics to make that call. Wolves are just like anything else, like a deer or elk they are an animal. I don’t like when someone gives them human like charecteristics like a thought process. We need to remember here, they act like a grizzly. If they are hungry enough, whatever moves is on the diet. So in conclusion I think yes they deserve a place in the forests, but once again, not unchecked and unchallenged.
nowolves on October 29 at 2:32 p.m.
Cpottz, I agree we got off on a tangent, Itsgodswill’s “hunters deserver…..mauled by wolves for eternity” comment needed to be addressed. Most of the time it’s people that have not been around hunting in any manner that know nothing about it & try to demonize it. Most people have not thought it through.. and will never understand why people hunt.
The one thing I know is I spend a lot of time in the woods, as tomorrow I will be out before sunrise & will see the sun set. If I get an animal it will be a gift from god. I will most certainly see wildlife of all kinds & even some that could be harvested. For me the target tomorrow will be looking for something that will be a little tougher to get…. like a big adult doe or bigger buck. The wolf - he sees fit to kill anything and everything he can sink his jaw into…. including his own kind & poor defenseless fawns. As for what I will do if I see a wolf …..(which I have twice in Wisconsin & once in Canada) he will continue on his way. I fight my wolf battles other ways!
Itsgodswill on October 29 at 2:56 p.m.
Cpottz: Our teeth do NOT match up to what a carnivores teeth look like or have the ability to do. We do not have sharp, pointy teeth like any carnivore (tigers, bears, sharks, WOLVES, etc..), our teeth ARE much closer to those of a horse or cow (flat and dull, aside from the canines, which still have NOTHING on the tooth of a carnivore), so while you may not agree with me, anatomy of the human tooth does not suggest that we were DESIGNED to eat meat. I say we set up a test in which we get a wolf, a cow, and a human to bite you, and we’ll just see which one the human bite feels more like (Carnivore vs. herbivore). I think you would view thing’s a bit differently at that point. Humans are very adaptable to changes, and during an ice age there would have been no plant life, and that’s when I think that meat would have become part of the human diet. So, as a necessity I would absolutely eat meat, however I am perfectly and probably MORE healthy without eating meat so I see no reason to do so. Another pretty key piece of information is that our intestines are not what a carnivores are. Carnivores have shorter intestines to ensure that meat does not rot while in the process of being digested..Humans intestines are longer, and in fact meat DOES begin to rot while it’s digesting. mmmm. tasty. Need I say much more on that subject?
nowolves, As i’ve continually said, I corrected myself because I don’t think there is anything wrong with hunting for food. A kill for fun is what deserves the punishment I suggested. I do not demonize hunting, I demonize unnecessary killing. And in this case, I do not see it as necessary.
Itsgodswill on October 29 at 3:10 p.m.
Oh and one last thing, nowolves:
It’s very ironic that you’re talking about people demonizing hunting..What do you think you’re doing to the wolf? let me spell it out for you…DEMONIZING.
Good debate, but opinions are opinions and im not trying to change anyones, just trying to offer my thoughts. With that said, have a great hunting trip and if your intentions are to put food on the table, good luck doing so.
straighttalk on October 29 at 3:21 p.m.
Memories need to be refreshed how we got into this situation. It was by ranchers and hunters eradicationg wolves from the eco-system in the mid 50s which eventually was one of the issues which brought about the Endangered Species Act of 1973 signed by Pres. Nixon.
If we have left the wolves alone to begin with and let nature take its natural course, we would not have the imbalance of nature that we are encountering now.
We have brought this on ourselves and hunters and ranchers should hang their heads in shame for eradication a competitor who was here first and only wishes to survive.
Bottom line, hunters and ranchers don’t like to compete; they want an easy ticket. Well, that ticket just got one helluva expensive thanks to their efforts.
nowolves on October 29 at 3:22 p.m.
Itsgodswill….. you hit the nail on the head! “unnecessary killing” Fish and game departments say it’s necessary to kill wolves depredating on livestock…… Sportsman say its necessary to kill wolves to protect game herds…. Itsgodswill says its never necessary to kill a wolf. What a world we would live in if Itsgodswill were in charge & I don’t think it is god’s will to let wolves go unchecked!
Sundance on October 29 at 4:28 p.m.
You need to fight this as much as possible you are lucky that you are not here in CA. We have protected seals eating our ground fish and our DFG wants to shut all fishing off. we need to be able to shoot some of those seals. and put things back in balance. they will start with wolves then it will be elk and other stuff. make sure you are knowing whom you vote for , we had a list of 20 judges here we were to pick 3 but there was no information on these judges. I did not know if they were liberal or Conservative so I did not vote for any. Our judges here have overturned the will of the people many times here. Don’t worry I do not want to move to ID someone has to stay here to fight this stuff. But my family has been there since there was a fort Sherman. Keep up the fight.
billb723 on October 29 at 7:36 p.m.
After reading the comments people wright, a person hates the wolf (the only good wolf is a dead wolf save our elk and livestock) or loves the wolf (it’s just wrong to kill this great animal doing what wolves do, let nature take it course)
Most of the people that hate wolves, live around wolves,and live in the country.
Most of the people that love wolves, don.t live around wolves, and live in the city.
It not rocket science JUST MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY trap the wolves out of the county (country people will be happy no wolves) and put them in the city ( city people will be happy, and see wolves all the time and a second gift to them, not one wolf will be harmed, and third gift, nature can take it course) ,and they can live around and enjoy wolves, A Win, Win
Now all you people are saying that is so stupid . but it is no more stupid than dumping all the wolves on the country with on control.
There was a reason almost every country in the world (not just a few) kill the wolf out and not the bear and the lion.
The wolves are just being wolves, KILLING MACHINES AND ARE GREAT AT WHAT THEY DO.
Bill
nowolves on October 31 at 6:50 p.m.
billb723 Nice post.. You’re right about the wolve being different than bears… Wisconsin has 700 wolves that depredate at a rate of $300 per wolf per year for “confirmed” depredation. If the 33000 bears in Wisconsin depredated at a rate of $300 per bear per year they would kill almost every cow in the northern part of the state almost $10,000,000 worth & that is only “confirmed” depredation.& and that does not include the cost of depredation managmeent! . The wolf is different!
Cpottz on November 01 at 11:41 a.m.
Im going to leave a comment for all the wolf lovers that have the chance to read what I think the future holds for the wolf. The original “wolf experiment” called out for there to be a total of 1200 wolves, let me repeat that, 1200 wolves between Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Now even though not all 3 of these states agreed to these numbers, the plan was put into effect. Since then the 1200 wolves between the 3 states was reached, and then that number increased over the next few years. So these are the simple stated facts.
Now say for example that an area was called out to carry an ungulate population of 1000 head of elk for a certain area, otherwise the land/landowner would suffer from over grazing. This issue is and always has been resolved by the state authorities. Either they give out more hunting permits, or they go in themselves and thin the herd down to population requirements.
So, the wolf is no different. If they are above the original numbers that were deemed necessary to remove them from the “endanged species list” which I might remind you only relates to their population in the rocky mountains, then they need to be thinned down to the numbers that were prescribed originally.
And to all wolf lovers let me educate you about people who actually live with wolves. They will be tolerated at 1200 and perhaps 50-100 more. They will not be tolerated above those numbers. What will happen if pushed, the states will realize the amount of money they are losing due to lack of an ungulate population is phenominal. Then, if they are not allowed to manage the numbers in their states, the worst thing for you wolf lovers will begin. Complete irradication. And just like Idaho is beggining to do now, Montana and Wyoming could follow suit. If that happens, all the work that has been done to re-establish the gray wolf population in the rocky mountains will be for nothing. If you honestly think people are purposefully killing wolves now, just wait. The ways of killing predators have been passed down for generations, and even the cianide gun will come back into play. So, if you know what is good for the wolf, get behind these states and allow the population to be controlled by the wildlife experts that have been controlling our natural population for decades. As long as the 1200 between the 3 states is always a factor, you can always be comforted that your wolves still thrive.
And please refrain from saying how inhumane it is to kill a wolf, before you say that look at some wolf kills, they kill calfs, eat them alive, and out of a 500lb calf they eat approximately 80 lbs. The rest goes to waste. Oh, another thing, mother nature will not find a balance on her own. Wolves will eventually run out of natural food. You think they just starve, and the population of wolves/ungulates just evens out? Wrong. People are in the picture now, we provide ample food sources after deer/elk/moose etc are gone. So do we just tell the ranchers to quit raising cattle so that mother nature can take its natural course? Please. That’s all for now.
ImmerTreue on November 01 at 2:10 p.m.
Coptz
If the Wyoming governor had not grandstanded, from what I have gathered, a 2010 wolf season would have been a done deal. There are so many of these posts. I remember one from March of this year where a hunter (both ungulate and wolf) all but begged for a toning down of antiwolf rhetoric. If it did not abate, and Wyoming did not retract it’s stance, that wolves would be put back on the ESL. That is what happened
I’ll use the I word again. If the three states had a season, and for simplicity sake let’s say there are 1700 wolves in the three states and at the far end of the spectrum, including calves, wolves take, on average, 23 elk each, with five hundred fewer wolves, that means 11,500 more elk. Idaho and Montana had their seasons last year and was the harvest 188 wolves? Wyoming?
Yes, there needs to be a culling of the number of wolves. Prior to wolf reintroduction, this pro-wolf writer knew this would be an important part of the puzzle. Do I want wolves killed? No. But is it necessary for their continued existance in the NRM? Absolutely. Thank Wyoming’s governor for no season, thus far, on wolves, and continued and fruitless argument on the extreme sides of this issue.
Cpottz on November 01 at 3:23 p.m.
Well, if that’s your thoughts then I have to say thank god there is a few conservative pro-wolf people in this world. Spread the word to others that might be, let’s say way too far to the wolve’s end of this debate. I agree, I am pro-hunter/rancher but I certainly see the wolf as a viable part of the ecosystem, and if we can all agree that their numbers need to be managed to a minimum of 1200 and a maximum of say 1400? between the 3 states then hell, we can call this debate over in my opinion.
ImmerTreue on November 01 at 5:46 p.m.
Cpottz,
I certainly do not look at my self as conservative, more of a conservationist… If you and I were to call the shots, no pun intended, it would be a done deal. If these numbers prove to be a deal maker, I’ll sit down with a good single malt scotch, and send a toast your way.
nowolves on November 03 at 6:55 p.m.
Cpottz, Unfortunately, you may think the debate is over but, there are a few of us that think old Immer is slipping you the big one. The thing old immer forgot to mention is that at the 1400 max level there are cost involved……. and you think Immer is going to pay for it. Unfortunately Immer knows that, (as he sucks another scotch) he knows your going to be stuck with the bill!
ImmerTreue on November 18 at 8:43 p.m.
nowolves, reality22 and any other moniker the “few of you” decide to go by, you have nothing positive to contribute. I agreed with another comment, someone perhaps more conservative than me on the wolf solution. Neither Cpottz nor I have any real control over the situation, yet consensus must start somewhere. Your comments over many of these sites, if readable, are nothing more than the cold and rain that ruins a weekend others would hope to enjoy.