From reintroduction to statewide hunt? Fish and Game releases draft plan to hunt wolves throughout Idaho. By Jason Kaufmann. Idaho Mountain Express.
One of the places Idaho Fish and Game won’t be holding a public hearing is the Wood River Valley: Hailey, Ketchum, Bellevue, Sun Valley, the largest population of mountain folks in central Idaho wolf country. Instead they opt for tiny Challis and Salmon for hearings.
Methinks the people in the Wood River Valley area are bit too educated, and not so easily scared by folk tales for about the vicious wolf for the Department to risk holding a hearing.
Comments
I should think that the Wood River Valley folks should call IDFG and make a stink about it. It seems they have just as much of a stake in how wolves are managed as anyone else and should have their own hearings.
“Largest population of mountain folk”?
Are you serious? I didn’t know that we were now classifying humans as well. Seems some think their higher education might make them smarter then the rest of the hillbillies below.
I always viewed the term as folks who choose to live in the mountains. I do part of the year and I’m not offended. Of course I would be, big time, if some referred to me as a “city slicker”…. :^)
BW, I wouldn’t say that they are smarter but they do live in an area where there are wolves and I think that they should have just as much say in wolf management as, say, Challis. Just because they may have a different point of view doesn’t mean they are any smarter or dumber than those other places. It seems that there is some politics going on with the areas selected for hearings by leaving out the Wood River Valley.
The wildlife and public lands are not owned by any particular group. Livestock, hunter, outfitter groups should not have a monopoly on how wildlife is managed even though they may think they should. The livestock interests haven’t done a particularly great job in managing their livestock, why should we expect them to a good job in managing wolves or any other wildlife and why should one area be excluded from the hearings?
I don’t live there and I am glad they are having hearings in McCall which is close to Cascade where I live.
It is not possible to hold meetings in ever place. Comments can be submitted on-line as well. If those highly educated “mountain folks” (per Ralph Maughan’s comments) are concerned enough they can still attend a meeting or submit their comments on-line.
Everyone is allowed to participate. No one is being excluded. Some would prefer to comment on-line versus standing up before a “virulent and ugly group of antiwolfers, with derogatory and threatening comments”.
It is possible to hold a meeting in the Wood River Valley and they should have meetings there.
I always thought that folks that lived in mountains were “mountain folks.”
Ralph wrote: “One of the places Idaho Fish and Game won’t be holding a public hearing is the Wood River Valley: Hailey, Ketchum, Bellvue, Sun Valley, the largest population of mountain folks in central Idaho wolf country. Instead they opt for tiny Challis and Salmon for hearings.”
It is obvious IF&G is playing politics with their location of public hearings. Of course they should hold a hearing in one or more of those cities.
Residents of Idaho shouldn’t stand for that crap.
–
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
the disproportionate representation given the location promises to push any MSM coverage further off balance – or at least keep them reverberating the marginal perspective.
How many people in Sun Valley live there?? How many have a PO box for an address because they live in “Hollyweird” or Beverly Hills or NYC or??
Maybe, just maybe it would make sense to have meetings where people and wolves mingle — not in the middle of the condos at Elkhorn.
If “Educated and not easily scared by folk tales” applies to the folks in the Wood River Valley, does “uneducated and easily scared by folk tales” apply to the folks in Challis and Salmon?? I’m sure they’d like to hear about that.
Just because the donation checks have a Wood River address on them doesn’t mean that the people sending them are really more educated and worldly or even that they have an appreciation for the real problems with wolves — does it??
Layton
More cheap shots from Layton.
Actually, I think that “uneducated and easily scared by folk tales” applies to quite a few in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, as well as Arizona, New Mexico, and…
That’s not a cheap shot – not that there’s anything wrong with being “uneducated and easily scared by folk tales,” unless it affects AMERICA’S public lands and the management of those lands and the management of wildlife which belongs to ALL the people of their respective states.
–
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
Layton,
Most people who donate to these causes are VERY well educated to the issues and have a great appreciation and passion for their particular interests. That is WHY they contribute.
“Actually, I think that “uneducated and easily scared by folk tales” applies to quite a few in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, as well as Arizona, New Mexico, ”
Of course that is an “opinion” from Mr. Bray — If layton would have said it — it would be “another cheap shot”.
Cat,
I certainly wouldn’t disagree that some of the folks that donate are very well educated — however, I don’t believe that any amount of education prevents them from being uninformed or naive.
Layton
I use the word “folks” to describe people because it avoids intentional or unintentional offenses. Using the words “hillbilly,” ” tree hugger,” “redneck,” “trustfunder,” “city slicker,” “rural bumpkin,” even “men” or “women” (the treacherous shoals of gender), will offend people, usually deliberately.
Layton,
Many people in Salmon and Challis are part-timers too and transfer payments are the largest source of income in these “classic” Idaho towns. If the income of these town depended on ranching, logging and mining, the population would be half of what they are and probably less than that.
Do you really think the educational level of people in the Wood River Valley is not higher than in the rest of central Idaho?
In addition, why should areas in central Idaho with a higher population density be ignored in favor of those with a lower one?
Methinks it is truly that a hearing in the Wood River Valley area would yield the “wrong” kind of testimony.
Conflict between the “locals” verses the “newcomers” is nothing new. This has been occuring since the dawn of human civilization & will continue, As Wendell Berry wrote: “everyone eventually “turns into a redskin”. The new “redskins” of the west are the locals (anti-wolf) verses the “monied” new-comers (pro-wolf). The new economic engine of the west is the wide open spaces of the public lands, wildlife & raw beauty & “trophy homes”.
An article I recently read, pointed out that when Yellowstone NP was established, the “locals” for 40 years after the park was established, petitioned congress to revoke the national park status “as the park would destroy the local economy”. Of course we now know that “Yellowstone” is a billion $ recreation industry. The majority of public lands in the west are high elevation, relatively unproductive lands, where only bears, wolves & mountain goats are raw-hide tough enough to survive in.
So “locals”, to some degree, will have to learn to adapt to the new realities of the west or become the “redskins”. And I do not mean to suggest that all change is desirable–like the extinction of the family farm–but it is what it is. Maybe, in the future, there will be a leveling out where the rule of reason takes hold & there will be a “balance” between amenities & commondities. But at this point I believe that the “balance” is in favor of consumption.
It’s obvious that IDFG does not want to hear from Wood River Valley residents because the testimony would be overwhelmingly in favor of wolves and against the proposed IDFG wolf hunt. However, just because IDFG does not want a meeting in Ketchum or Hailey, that does not mean there won’t be one. Stay tuned.
Layton,
I am curious. Why do you suppose that anti wolf groups get little or no support other than from ranchers and some hunters? Yet in contrast, pro wolf groups recieve contributions from people from all walks of life and all areas of the country and even worldwide. In your view, does this indicate that these people are uninformed or naive? If so, why couldn’t these uninformed and naive ones be persuaded to support the anti wolf groups? Could it be that they are actually well informed and not naive? The simple fact is that the rest of the world does not buy the anit wolfers self serving, bloodthirsty reasoning. They comprehend that the fight to save the wolf and all wildlife is a fight to save the environment and in the end the planet and mankind.
I’m obviously not Layton, but it’s a case of the mass public versus old economic and cultural elites in the area using the wolf to hang onto power — to divert folks’ attention away from issues like the poor educational opportunities and health care, especially in rural areas.
If the wolf had not been reintroduced, the Idaho and Wyoming “old west” establishments would have invented another issue to try to maintain control and to avoid being blamed for the lack of opportunities for people the in extractive occupations not being able to retrain, nor retire.
Whoa!!
Now that surprises me!! This is a conspiracy theory even above and beyond the others I have heard. The Old West establishment using wolves to divert attention away from health care and educational issues?? Wow! Hillary would be proud of you Ralph.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and that one really gets kind of far out there.
Cat — my (purely anecdotal) answer to your question would be that the “world wide” and “all walks of life” folks that you refer to are the easiest to “hustle”. They are (to a large extent) the most easily led because they don’t live in the affected areas.
They don’t see the wolf kills in the elk woods, they don’t have friends that are going thru economic problems because of livestock losses — in short, they don’t know their butts from third base in spite of the highly educated backgrounds they possess.
Now — along comes ——– (insert the name of your favorite group of friends of the wolf here) — with a slick spread in some magazine like O or Outside or any one of a group of pubs that cater to that group — all it has to do is show some photos of wolves playing beside a scenic backdrop of some sort — throw in a few remarks about mamma and daddy wolf and all the kids — no blood —and you have a perfect recipe for “where do I send the money”? Now do it in a few different languages and send the copy to Europe — Voila!!, we have Euros to go with the dollars.
I understand where you are coming from, I just can’t say that I believe it.
Layton
More education does not make people better decision makers on any issue. What passes for education in many of the social sciences in particular these days is more like left wing indoctrination.
Layton,
You still don’t answer the question of “If these most easily led people are so being hustled by this plethora of environmentalist’s pubs., why haven’t any of them been led to supporting the anti wolfers? After all we are being pulmalgated with sob stories of how “poor put upon” ranchers are having to (how did you put it) “endure economic problems due to livestock losses.” Why, I’ve even heard they have had to endure the loss of their treasured family pets. Seems like some of these people that are so easy to hustle would take some pity on the poor ranching ranching families especially with the losses of their beloved Lassies and Totos and Fidos. BUT NOOOOOOO! They don’t buy it. They must not be TOO easy to hustle. They give their money to groups that are going to help save their environment.
Layton,
Of course you could share with those “easily led” people from “All walks of life” some of those favorite industry photos to try to garner some sympathy. How about some of those sentimental slaughterhouse scenes. That ought to evoke some inspiration to dig deep into their pockets to lend you a hand????
Layton,
A couple of things….
1. Regarding Hillary. Anyone that thinks that H. Clinton is a liberal is so far indoctrinated in conservatism as to not know up from down. You’ve been tricked! The Clintons (both of them) are centrists. Hilliary is so close to Rudolf Guiliani they might as well be running mates. If you want a liberal to hate, look at Dennis Kucinich–now that guy is liberal. I laugh at Republicans who hate Hillary, most of us liberals don’t want her any more than you do.
2. As someone who lived in California, I thought it only appropriate to give you a taste of what we “don’t see”: 1. An equal share of our nation’s tax dollars–most go to republican states in the south, but the best return on your $ is Alaska; 2. cheap housing–they have 100 year mortgages in CA (it’s always wonderful when you have something to leave to your children); 3. cheap energy–Arnold was elected because Enron manipulated energy prices and caused “rolling blackouts” throughout California. If not for them, CA would still have a democratic governor.
You want to complain about livestock losses…for which ranchers are reimbursed…give me a break.
I grow tired of this, “no one understands our pain” attitude from Westerners. Guess what? Other people have it bad too. Guess what else? The majority of Californians and for that matter East Coast residents are not rich, not well educated, and are arguably worse off than you. I would hazard a guess that there are more people living in poverty in California than there are people in Idaho and Wyoming combined. So enough with the frigging stereotypes. Let it go. Accept people as individuals, not members of some group you love to hate.
My 2 cents.
JB
Layton,
What’s your point with reference to the “wolf kills in the elk woods”? Have you ever field dressed an animal in the woods? I just shot and dressed out an elk recently, and having seen wolf kills before, I can assure you their kill sites don’t look any worse than mine, maybe even cleaner since they’re not leaving large gut piles laying around like we do. So should people be equally offended when they come across the results of elk killed by people? If not, why not? A dead elk with its flesh cut off or chewed off is still a dead elk? I’d be willing to bet wolves are a heck of a lot more efficient about removing meat from a carcass than a hunter, so maybe we should be more offended by a hunter-killed elk? Whadda say?
Gotta love those westerners that hate those easterners; especially gotta love those “hunting guides” that gladly suck what, $5K a week outta those eastern “hunter’s” bank accounts so they can kill a trophy bull. Who remembers the salt licks that “hunting guides” would place in the Teton Wilderness to draw big bulls out of Yellowstone? Their sucker eastern “hunters” thought they were having the hunt of a lifetime…! They were just being led to the killing fields and to this day, it’s still the outfitters making the REAL killing…!
Somebody’s getting scammed here. See if you can tell the scammer from the scamee.
Really gotta love those independent minded, Washington hating welfare ranchers who rely on Congress to keep AUM fees low not to mention the help from U.S.D.A. found here:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404App.pdf
U. S. government assistance to the (nondairy) livestock sector is limited to emergency measures approved for a specific scope and period of time to address the needs of producers suffering losses due to drought, hot weather, disease, insect infestation, flood, fire, hurricane, earthquake, severe storms, or other natural disasters. Such emergency measures were enacted under the Livestock Indemnity Program and the Livestock Assistance Program. When livestock producers are experiencing financial stress, USDA may purchase meats for domestic feeding programs to help strengthen prices. In 1999, payments were made to small hog producers to help re-establish their purchasing power under an infrequent use of Section 32 of the Agricultural Act of 1935. U. S. tariffs on imports of beef, pork, and poultry meat are low to moderate, and tariff-rate quotas provide for limited imports of beef at lower tariffs.
Sorry for being off-topic.
–
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
Could it be they are not having meetings in the Sun Valley area to determine if those folks are really in favor of wolves. If they are then surely they would drive the ~100 miles to Challis just to voice their concern.
Cat,
“If these most easily led people are so being hustled by this plethora of environmentalist’s pubs., why haven’t any of them been led to supporting the anti wolfers?”
First of all, who says some of them aren’t? I don’t know the numbers, do you??
I would have to kind of go along with you a bit here — I do think that the hunting/fishing/consumptive outdoor user community IS less than ambitious about promoting themselves. Talk about a “big bad wolf” attitude — we’ve let folks from the greenie side cast us as the bad guys for so long that some folks actually believe it.
As for the rest of that particular post of yours, I think you let your blind hatred of anything resembling ranching take away any sort of a valid viewpoint that you might muster up concerning anything to do with ranchers OR their families.
And — WHO in the hell said anything about slaughterhouses?? Where did that come from?? AND, who is looking for someone to “lend them a hand” or generate some sympathy? I think that is something better left to other people.
JB,
How did the Californians and the Southern states get into this?? Is there an effort to introduce wolves there too?
“You want to complain about livestock losses…for which ranchers are reimbursed…give me a break.”
A “break” that needs to be given here is one that REALLY reimburses the ranch folk for their losses. Anyone that thinks it (the current plan from Defenders) even comes close is a little bit dense.
Jay,
My point was that there is NO mention of wolves eating anything – even vegetables – in any of the touchy feely “send us your money” articles. Blood?? Heavens no, momma and daddy wolf feed the babies without ever acting like carnivores!!
Mack —- oh just forget it!!
Whew, pretty long winded for me —–
Layton
Layton
I’M saying something about slaughterhouses. In response to my question about why more people support pro-wolf orgs. than anti-wolf orgs, you point out that those “easily led” people can be hustled by a few photos of mommy and daddy wolves. In reply I point out that they must not be so easily led or the “poor put upon” rancher would surely be able to extract some sympathy cash from them with all of their whining. Then I suggested perhaps you could share some of YOUR photos. I suppose the facetiousness of the sentimental slaughterhouse scenes escapes you.
I guess I’m just funny that way, to hate something that is so blatantly destructive to anything that cannot be dominated or stands in the way of that something’s selfish exploitation for profit, of the land we live on, the air we breath and the water we drink. I’ve always been taught: Hate what is bad, love what is good.
“A “break” that needs to be given here is one that REALLY reimburses the ranch folk for their losses. Anyone that thinks it (the current plan from Defenders) even comes close is a little bit dense.”
Count me in the “dense” department then…hmm… am recalling a conversation about cheap shots here.
Let’s go over the facts regarding ranchers losses: We’ve got a near decade of drought, elk #s above pop. goals (they compete with livestock), a whole host of predators on the landscape (including feral dogs), and very cheap beef imported from outside the US. Yet, the ONLY loss ranchers are reimbursed for is wolves. So they have a vested interest in claiming every animal that dies on PUBLIC LAND was killed by a wolf–it’s the only loss they can be paid for. Tell me again why I should chastise Defenders for not reimbursing them enough (let me remind you that Defenders did not reintroduce wolves, the Federal government did)?
Regarding Californians and Southern states: I took exception to your stereotype of people that give $ to groups like Defenders…those of us that are easy to “hustle.” I assumed that included easterners, city-slickers, and Californians, as they meet your criteria of people who “the most easily led because they don’t live in the affected areas.” My point was that other folks (besides ranchers) have it bad too–and many of those who you love to hate (e.g. easterners and Californians), have it a lot worse then Ranchers. I grow tired of the constant boohoo of Western conservatives that think everyone is out to get them.
Let’s review ranching for a moment: you get to live on a ranch in one of the most beautiful places in the world, work outside all day, and pay laughable rates for grazing your animals on public land? Hmm…there must be something we can complain about…. I know! Wolves! We hate them! Oh, and don’t forget the Government! They take all our money and give it to Californians…oh wait, you mean they give it to republicans in the South and Alaska? That’s okay, we still hate ’em, their the one’s that put wolves here.
We all feel compelled to complain about something. If life is so good that your number one complaint is “wolves sometimes kill my cattle and then people pay me for it,” then you need to look around at what other people are going through. You’ll find you should be counting your blessings.
Wow JB,
To put it VERY mildly — you are doing a MARVELOUS job of proving what the word “assume” does!!
Gee — where do I start?? Let’s try here:
“Regarding Californians and Southern states: I took exception to your stereotype of people that give $ to groups like Defenders…those of us that are easy to “hustle.” I ASSUMED (here’s that word) that included easterners, city-slickers, and Californians, as they meet your criteria of people who “the most easily led because they don’t live in the affected areas.” My point was that other folks (besides ranchers) have it bad too–and many of those who you love to hate (e.g. easterners and Californians), have it a lot worse then Ranchers.
I think It’s you that is doing the “easterner/California stereotype — not me. I didn’t reference ANY location, simply a certain group of people easily affected by a particular kind of advertisement. I don’t “love to hate” anyone — hate is really stupid, no matter who does it, I don’t have time for it.
Now this:
“Let’s review ranching for a moment: you get to live on a ranch in one of the most beautiful places in the world, work outside all day, and pay laughable rates for grazing your animals on public land?”
And this:
” If life is so good that your number one complaint is “wolves sometimes kill my cattle and then people pay me for it,” then you need to look around at what other people are going through. You’ll find you should be counting your blessings.
You are WRONG on all counts!! I’m not a rancher, haven’t been one in all of my adult life. I was raised on a ranch, and a dairy farm, and an orchard — does that somehow limit my ability to think??
I have spent over 30 years as an engineer for for some very well known hi tech companies that thought they were getting pretty good value for the price they paid me for my analytical abilities — I really do believe that I have the ability to look at a problem from ALL sides – especially when I live near or in the area involved and actively participate in activities affected by the animals we are talking about here.
Do you need any more references??
Layton
PS: I DO count my blessings — most every day.
Layton, are you a member of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife?
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
Layton,
You ask me if I know the numbers of those who choose to give to anti wolf or pro rancher organizations, as apposed to the millions who support wolf and wildlife orgs. Well, I did a google on charity orgs. Of course there are numerous websites that list charities. I picked the top 3 on the list. Give.com, Choose2care.com and guidestare.com. Literally thousands of charities are listed on any of these sites. As suspected there were hundreds of orgs. that support wildlife and wolves specifically. Amazingly, there was NOT ONE organization that either exists to assist “Put Upon” ranchers and their traumatized families through these “wolf induced” economic problems, or to protect them from the onslaught of invading environmentalist hordes. The only thing that comes close is the Defenders of Wildlife’s depredation compensation fund, and that exist in the intrerest of protecting wolves. So I guess the number you seek would be 0. Do you think that all of the millions who support wolf causes are being misled? Or, could it be that the entire world sees nothing in the ranchers plight to take pity on?
Layton, I see you’ve managed to avoid all of the substantive content of my previous post. What a marvelous demonstration of your ability to “look at a problem from ALL sides.” Congratulations.
I’m confused, which counts am I wrong on? My assumption (yes, it was an assumption) that you were referring to people who lived outside of Montana/Idaho/Wyoming? If so, I apologize.
By the way, I actually never said that you were involved in ranching–nor did I assume it. I said: “Let’s review ranching for a moment: you get to live on a ranch in one of the most beautiful places in the world…” I used the word “you” to refer to ranchers, never assuming that you were one of them. I apologize if YOU (not ranchers) misinterpreted my comments.
I also, never questioned your ability to think. In fact, I believe that you were the one that insinuated that I am “dense.”
Finally, you asked: “Do you need any more references??” I’m sorry Layton, but I don’t see where you’ve provided any references at all? Nor have you made any attempt to argue any of the factual content of my post. That leads me to the assumption (yes, I’m sorry…I’m assuming again) that you’re just picking fights. If I’m wrong, I apologize–perhaps I’m just dense…I apologize for that too.
Mack,
No, I don’t.
JB,
Did your post HAVE any substantive content?? I guess I did miss it — what I saw was mostly just a rant about republicans and ranchers.
Here, I’ll shorten this quote maybe I made it to long the first time around. If life is so good that your number one complaint is “wolves sometimes kill my cattle and then people pay me for it,”
Now just which part of “kill MY cattle” and “people pay ME” was it that I misunderstood when pointing out that I was NOT a rancher??
” I believe that you were the one that insinuated that I am “dense.”
Weeeelll, what I really did was question the Defenders reimbursement program — didn’t say a word about you —- but —
Hey — if you want to talk about the issues, do it!! If you want to keep up this inane little pissing contest — ask Ralph for my Email address and quit boring the people that look to this blog for some content!!
Cat,
Could a large part of the situation be that most of the affected farmers are old school and don’t look for a handout?
Layton
I do grow tired of this Layton, so this will be the last time. Then you can rant at me all you like. First, I’ll quote you yet again:
“…Anyone that thinks it (the current plan from Defenders) even comes close is a little bit dense.” Dense. Your word, not mine. You know, arguing over who called who what is a whole lot easier when there’s actually a written record. Too bad they didn’t have blogs when I was in grade school!
And, you said: “Now just which part of “kill MY cattle” and “people pay ME” was it that I misunderstood when pointing out that I was NOT a rancher??”
[sigh] Please re-read my previous post, as I think I already explained this. Remember, this section of my post began, “Let’s review ranching for a moment: you get to live on a ranch…” I even apologized in my previous post for my lack of clarity…and for being dense.
As for the substantive content. Please re-read the paragraph that begins: “Let’s go over the facts regarding ranchers losses…” I believe this addressed your gripe about Defenders’ compensation program.
I would love to talk about the issues Layton. In fact, I will continue to do so…on other threads. I won’t revisit this one.
BTW: I’m still waiting for those references?
JB
Layton,
Probably not. If that were the case, they wouldn’t be whining all the time about their losses.
Lynne
Keep up the pressure on the IDF&G for a meeting in the Wood River Valley.
I will be attending the wolf meetings in the Boise area.
I would really like to hear of any wolves in the Stanley or Wood River area that could be observed and photographed.
I had some interesting encounters with the Hayden and Mollie wolf packs in Yellowstone about a month ago. I have closeups of the Haydens pursuing elk. You can see my photos and comments on my website : LarryThorngren.com
Larry
A letter has been send to ID Fish and Game by a number of organizations: Defenders of Wildlife, the Boulder-White Clouds Council, Friends of the Clearwater, Idaho Conservation League, Lands Council, Western Watersheds Project, Wolf Education and Research Center, and the Wolf Recovery Foundation. We ask for a hearing in the Wood River Valley.
As I said before, if the wolf issue is such an important topic then those folks who live in the wood river valley would be more than happy to drive the 100 miles to challis to attend a meeting. After all, the majority of them make much more money than you or I ever will.
I do not see the ‘no meeting scheduled in the wood river valley area’ as an issue. Not much different than the ‘lazy hunter that many of you describe who has to ride in their truck or 4-wheeler all day in hopes that an elk will walk in front of them. I guess from this stand point I have to ask who is lazy or shows th least interest, the hunter in his truck or folks who live in wood river valley area. They obviously are whining about the opportunity to go to one of these meetings, even though it is 100 miles away. I guess those wolves are not so important after all
More cheap shots from “Dante” who can’t seem to make the distinction between a political decision to not hold a public meeting in a particular location and hunting slobs who want to hold easy meetings with their prey.
This person sure seems to be a non-contributor to this blog.
–
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
Mack,
Obviously you are of the mentality that only your opinion counts and everyone elses does not. As you state, more cheap shots from Dante. However, more childish ranting from Mack!
Bob Wharff, (BW), Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming said: “Some would prefer to comment on-line versus standing up before a “virulent and ugly group of antiwolfers, with derogatory and threatening comments”.
HEY, BOB WHARFF, I remember a few years ago when Teton County, WY, announced a meeting to gather public input on the county possibly banning the feeding of wildlife by citizens and your group thought the ban could possibly grow into a feedlot ban and your group threatened to pack the place and disrupt the meeting – someone >?< (now who could that be? – okay, it was me) called a TV station in Idaho Falls and told them of the situation; they set a crew and amazingly enough, outside of the general public, only you and a couple of other Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife types were there.
The intent was to intimidate the public so they wouldn’t stand up before a ““virulent and ugly group of wildlife feeders, with derogatory and threatening comments”.
Remember that, Bob?
—
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
i sure hope the roads are alright for the 100 mile drive.
i sure hope they allow statements to be made. word is it’s going to be a ‘browse around the room’ type of event.
It’s going to the kind you don’t like, where you look at maps and ask F & G people questions privately.
be, what’s the meaning behind ‘browse around the room’ type of event?
I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer…!
Mack,
You are truly amazing! I thought we did alright with the meeting. Which organization had more people attending the meeting then SFW? I saw more red shirts in the audience then anything else. By the way, since Teton County banned the private feeding of wildlife, have the human/moose conflicts been reduced or are those subdivisions still in prime moose habitat?
I am not the one that continually employs childish name calling and/or rude behavior.
For clarification, the group I represent in Wyoming is actually called Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife. Our groups is neither in league with private landowners, outfitters, the devil, or anti-predator. We are simply a grassroots organization that is organizing sportsmen to participate in the political process which environmentalist groups have dominated in our absence. You might not like us, nor do you agree with our tactis. However, we did learn them from you.
As I stated earlier, mountain folk (as well as others) can still send in comments via email. If the highly educated mountain folk don’t own a computer, their local libraries should be able to provide them with access to the internet and assistance should they need it.
the events that i have been to with this format have been disappointing – perhaps because i have had a video camera and would like to get public statements on the record in a way that illustrates to folk that weren’t able to be there.
example: the meeting concerning the murphy complex fire went like Ralph mentions, you browse around a room where agency folk explain one on one what they believe is going to happen ~ if you get around to speaking to them before one individual decides to spout on for 30 minutes about their anecdotal philosophies of the world ~ “you know i shot a buck up along willow creek back in ’83 from 230 yards” – “oh you don’t say” on and on. There is no public comment in front of anyone recording the comment (agency folk or public). there is no opportunity for everyone in the room to listen to anyone else, which in my opinion is important. there is no real moderated forum for people to express themselves in a way that everyone else is sitting and obliged to listen.
and like i alluded to before – it makes it difficult for me and others like me to bring back the testimony to you in a cohesive way. it’s a wandering around a room.
i would support this format in addition to a microphone which allows each to have their piece on the record in a way that does not force participants to compete for understanding or contribution. make this format before or after the proper testimony.
look – i hope (and assume) that my comments do not dissuade folk from showing up. every wolf advocate and their sister-in-law needs to be there. please – be there.
BW,
so members of SFW wear red shirts?
Layton may not be a rancher, but I am. You are right I get to live on a ranch. I get to look out my window and see elk every morning. I also get to work 7 days a week and during calving season 24 hours a day. I get to go outside at 20 below and 100 degrees. I get to have people tell me that if I just took better care of my animals wolves wouldn’t kill them. I get to live in a 1972, 15 foot long trailer away from my family all summer, just so I can try to keep wolves away from my livestock. I get to spend every other day putting them back where they belong because wolves ran them during the night. I get to doctor animals that have been eaten alive by wolves. You’re right I get alot of things, but during it all I don’t remember once wishing I could kill every last wolf. There are millions of acres that wolves can live on without ever bothering livestock. I have read plenty of comments about the anti wolfer who wants to kill all wolves but in the real world that is just a great scare tactic for pro wolfers to keep the issue controversial. Yes, it is emotional, wolves are beautiful creatures who have a right to live. But, does that mean they should be allowed to continue to expand their ranges unchecked? All other predator populations are currently managed using hunting as a tool. Bear and lions are thriving and coming into our cities on a regular basis, somehow I don’t think wolves will be an exception.
be:
Hardly. That would be Wyoming G&F Employees.
Bob Wharff, (BW), Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming, you are a two-faced, deceptive man. I wouldn’t trust you as far as I could throw you.
The organization that had more people attending the meeting would have been the organization of private citizens of Teton County. There were only 3 or 4 of your group, as I recall. I don’t recall a single “red shirt” (Wyoming Game & Fish employee) in attendance. And the feeding/wildlife conflict was about more than moose; there were lions in subdivisions; and yes, conflicts are down now that feeding is illegal. And by the way, when a county permits the subdivision of land and the construction of homes, that land ceases to become prime wildlife habitat. Unfortunate, but true. Take a land management class and get up to speed.
—
Bob Wharff, you said your group is not anti-predator. You’re full of shit.
—
Folks, in January of 2004, Sportsmen for (some) Fish & (some) Wildlife of Wyoming organized a coyote slaughter in Park County, Wyoming. A bounty of $20 per dead coyote brought in was offered. The group donated $5,000 toward the cause, supplemented by another $5,000 from the Cody Country Outfitters. The bounty was available until the $10K ran out. 475 coyotes were killed and brought in. From an AP story:
“Our goal was reached,” said Lou Cicco of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, of the program which ended up with a payout of $9,500 over two months, starting in January.
“It really got the kids involved, women too,” he told the Cody Enterprise. “It gave them something to do and got back the old pioneer spirit of hunting.”
Regarding criticism from biologists that the program would have little effect, Cicco said, “I don’t believe a word they said. This did a lot of good.”
But a Game and Fish official said the program would have been more effective if it had targeted a specific area and was part of an integrated pest management plan.
To make a dent in coyote numbers, a program needs to take 50 percent of the population for three consecutive years, said Kevin Hurley, Game and Fish wildlife coordinator.
Gary Brown of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department said that although coyotes can affect deer herds, so can drought and mountain lions.
Charles Preston, curator of the Draper Museum of Natural History, said lower coyote numbers could have unintended consequences, such as an increase in foxes, which also prey on game birds.
“To benefit the game population, put it into habitat improvement,” he said. “The real threat to game is loss of habitat.”
—
In January of 2007, Sportsmen for (some) Fish & (some) Wildlife of Idaho held it’s first annual Predator Derby in Marsing, Idaho. I’ll give you the URL to a great High Country article later. Here’s some excerpts:
Larry Lansdowne, a sales rep for Quaker Boy, a call and hunting-gear maker notes: shot placement isn’t particularly important. (My comment: very good, “Sportsmen.” Blow their muzzles off, give ’em a gut shot, blow a leg off, whatever. Very sporting, eh?)
As promised, the picking of the ticket for the grand prize comes at the end of the evening. SFW member Richard Scott holds the winning ticket. He and a partner will be headed to hunt wolves with BOSS Outfitters in Alberta, where, as one unsuccessful contestant remarked, “There are plenty of ’em, and you can shoot as many as you want.”
“A boy of about 14 tells me how he has a place near here that is his favorite, and he points to a ridge, just now in full darkness, to the southwest. “If I could, I’d just stay up there and live,” he said, “go hunting every day. I don’t like living in town.” Later he will ask me what kind of rifle I shoot, and whether I think it would be fun to hunt coyotes with a machine gun.”
—
Here’s the article, which is a very important, informative and revealing article about Sportsmen for (some) Fish & (some) Wildlife:
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17076
—
Bob Wharff, you said “Our groups is neither in league with private landowners, outfitters, the devil, or anti-predator.” I’m certain I’ve somehow misunderstood what you said and I’m certain I don’t understand your group’s position on predators.
Please clarify for us.
—
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
IMPORTANT:
Should U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delist wolves, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong), there is NOTHING to prevent Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife from offering a bounty on wolves where they’re classified as predators JUST LIKE COYOTES ARE and can be killed BY ANY MEANS, AT ANY TIME, BY ANYBODY, no license needed. A $100 or $500 or $1,000 bounty could be offered.
–
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
Mack:
You are classy. Remember “sticks and stones may break your bones, but names will never hurt you?”
As far as trust goes, I doubt much if I can put much trust in you either. Although I don’t know who you are I can bet that you wouldn’t be able to throw me if you wanted to but I am glad to learn that you won’t use physical violence against me should our paths cross at some additional wolf meetings.
Your opinion is just that, your opinion. SFW is all about protecting our hunting heritage. Those of you which would like to feed all surplus (surplus meaning all animals over the minimum number of maintaining a specific population) ungulates to predators are directly fighting those of us which hunt. We are the top predator regardless of what you want to believe. Predators have their place but it certainly is not the best method of managing wild populations as they can not be stopped once they are unleashed. State agencies for years have successfully used hunters to provide money to fund their agencies and assist with maintaining and balancing wildlife populations within their respective ranges. Hunters can be regulated but predators are very difficult to manage. As has been stated on here several times, many believe if you kill it you should be eating it. This belief denies the need to manage predators within their range and scope of impact. It is easy for those of you which do not hunt to say that you want to see more predators. Sportsmen have created the wealth of big game which exist today. We stopped them from being exploited and recovered them without any help from environmentalists. Now many of these environmentalists desire to see the resources we have built depleted to the point that hunting can no longer be sustained. It has been mentioned on here that a lot of people will send money in to help protect wildlife; yet, none of that money is sent to state wildlife agencies. It seems to only find its way into the hands of those which desire to see hunting terminated, continue endless litigation, further promote the disney wildlife mentality, etc. etc. Yes, I would rather see money raised by hunters continue to be used to maintain wildlife populations which are numerous enough to allow for sustained hunting rather then surrender our current system to those which have not helped build it nor contributed to in any way.
Bob Wharff,
BE, who sometimes moderates this blog while I am away, has done a lot reporting on the use of words to manipulate public perceptions on these contentious issues.
The word “manage” in such word. It is an abstract verb and it can be filled with all kinds of content, or more likely just left for a person to fill in with their imagination.
It sounds a lot better to say “we are going to manage predators,” than to say “we are going to kill as many as we can without provoking a response that will backfire under the ESA.” That’s how I fill in your use of the word “manage.”
Bob Wharff,
Everyone who has studied the history of wildlife management in the United States knows that organizations of sportsmen have provided a large amount of money to improve habitat and restore and perpetuate huntable species.
They also know that the process is distorted in that it results in little protection for non-game. In fact, it results in persecution of some native non-game.
Having said this, it takes a lot of balls for you to claim that your organization is really part of this when you are a bunch of elk feeders with little use of for public lands, especially if it involves the purchase of land for wildlife habitat.
Oh, my god.
Where do I even begin.
No, Bob, I won’t be using physical violence against you or anybody else, except in self defense. For the record, Bob Wharff was the first to mention physical violence against anyone’s human person.
Also for the record, I hunt and I fish. It can be seen that I’m not opposed to hunting or fishing.
—
“Those of you which would like to feed all surplus (surplus meaning all animals over the minimum number of maintaining a specific population) ungulates to predators are directly fighting those of us which hunt.”
False, broad generalization. Those of you which would like to kill all surplus wolves (surplus meaning all animals over the minimum number of maintaining a specific population) are directly fighting those of us which want wolves and their prey to exist to the fullest extent possible. I believe that wolves should be controlled and that a reasonable hunt is not out order. However, what’s being proposed in Wyoming is not reasonable, in my opinion.
“Predators have their place but it certainly is not the best method of managing wild populations as they can not be stopped once they are unleashed.”
False, alarmist statement. Predators and their prey have existed for thousands of years before your first birthday.
“Hunters can be regulated…”
Regulated, of course, but how ’bout them poachers?
“Sportsmen have created the wealth of big game which exist today.”
This is partially true, to sportsmen and sportwomen’s credit. However, legislation to stop the slaughter of wildlife in the early 1900’s played a HUGE role.
“We stopped them from being exploited and recovered them without any help from environmentalists.”
False. Many “environmentalists” are HUNTERS and many HUNTERS are “environmentalists.”
“Now many of these environmentalists desire to see the resources we have built depleted to the point that hunting can no longer be sustained.”
Name one or more. And I’d like phone numbers, too.
“It has been mentioned on here that a lot of people will send money in to help protect wildlife; yet, none of that money is sent to state wildlife agencies.”
This will change.
“It seems to only find its way into the hands of those which desire to see hunting terminated, continue endless litigation, further promote the disney wildlife mentality, etc. etc. Yes, I would rather see money raised by hunters continue to be used to maintain wildlife populations which are numerous enough to allow for sustained hunting rather then surrender our current system to those which have not helped build it nor contributed to in any way.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Are you familiar with the public trust doctrine whereas, by law, ALL the wildlife of a state belongs to ALL the people of that state and is to be managed on behalf of ALL the people of that state and not just special interest groups? If you’re not familiar, state such and I’ll help you learn.
—
Bob Wharff, (BW), Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming, you said “Our groups is neither in league with private landowners, outfitters, the devil, or anti-predator.” I’m certain I’ve somehow misunderstood what you said and I’m certain I don’t understand your group’s position on predators.
How about a direct answer to a direct question: what is Sportmen for Fish and Wildlife of Wyoming’s official position on predators and predator management?
–
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
Bob Wharff,
Speaking of elk feeding, I see you are at it again today. This might be good politics, but it is awful for a healthy elk herd.
I enjoyed seeing all the elk at the NER, but that was when I was a child and didn’t know that elk do not naturally concentrate like this during winter and that they leave these feedlots ASAP, even before any greenup.
Story in today’s Jackson Hole News and Guide.
Another Hay Day.
HEADLINE:
LAYTON AGREES WITH BE!! WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE?
8^)
Really, I do!!
I too think that the “walk around and talk like buddies” scenario sucks!! BUT, c’mon BE you did know that there just HAD to be a “but” — didn’t you??
You said:
example: the meeting concerning the murphy complex fire went like Ralph mentions, you browse around a room where agency folk explain one on one what they believe is going to happen ~ if you get around to speaking to them before one individual decides to spout on for 30 minutes about their anecdotal philosophies of the world ~ “you know i shot a buck up along willow creek back in ‘83 from 230 yards” – “oh you don’t say” on and on.”
I would counter that with — you walk around the room trying to get a chance to speak with one of the agency people — “if you get around to speaking to them before one individual decides to spout on for 30 minutes about their anecdotal philosophies of the world ” — like – well you KNOW that since the wolves only kill the sick, weak, asleep and merely unfortunate ungulates — etc — etc — etc. 8^)
BUT — WE DO AGREE!!
Layton
Mr. Bray,
You sir, are just a lost cause — I had about a half dozen quotes from your last dissertation against SFW (by the way, I think I’ll join the org. just cuz you hate them so much, it’s a good recommendation) but I don’t even want to get it started this AM.
Suffice it to say that – to anyone with half a brain – you are —–
Naaaa, I feel so good cuz I agree with BE for once that I’ll just let it go.
8^)
Layton
Layton,
What a bunch of confusing posts! I can’t figure out what you are talking about, especially the way you quote past posts and make hard-to-follow references to those of others.’
Ralph:
Your arrogance is overwhelming.
WY SFW has done more then you are giving us credit for. In fact, Wyoming now has one of the best vectors to care for its wildilfe because of its the Wildlife & Natural Resources Trust fund. This was defeated twice before but SFW was able to get it done by cooperating with AG and Oil & Gas interests. Something environmental groups were unable to do.
We are currently working to increase and secure funding for sensitive species as well in our state. This effort will be accomplished and SFW will be the major player in this effort as well. The truth is that wildlife projects have always benefitted all wildlife not just those which we hunt and fish. Without a doubt we can and should do a better job seeing to the needs of non-game species. Sportsmen I know enjoy seeeing all kinds of wildlife not just those we can hunt or fish. In addition, we have always stepped up to the challenge of protecting our interests. Predators have their place but it certainly should not be allowed to circumvent the current system which is based upon sustainable resources being purchased by those which hunt, especially given that the current system received little if anything from those which claim to champion non-game wildlife.
Mack,
Was it you a while back that found that Wyoming statute for wildlife management stating that G&F will have the latitude to declare wolves as predators even in the trophy game areas within the state?
Here’s a telling quote from BW:
“We’re not going to sit back and let hunting be replaced by predators, which is what we see happening now. I have maintained for a long time that Wyoming has the right to manage wolves in a different way than other states, because we have the lion’s share of Yellowstone National Park, and the park is called, in studies by the government, a ‘wolf nursery,’ ” Wharff says. “This is not a species (wolves) that ever really needed protection. I believe that wolf reintroduction had nothing to do with re-establishing the wolf to its native range. It was about eliminating public-lands grazing and hunting.”
In my mind it may be about eliminating grazing on public lands, but it’s never been about eliminating hunting. I suppose they need the element of fear and that statement garners more of it. The Jimmie Swaggert of hunting ministries. “Keep those checks coming brethren and blessings from above are on the way”
Macks Quote:”No, Bob, I won’t be using physical violence against you or anybody else, except in self defense. For the record, Bob Wharff was the first to mention physical violence against anyone’s human person.”
Mack P. Bray Says:
November 30, 2007 at 9:11 am
Bob Wharff, (BW), Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming, you are a two-faced, deceptive man. I wouldn’t trust you as far as I could throw you.
I guess throwing an individual isn’t a violent act, eh Mack?
Yep, Hey day tomorrow in Jackson. Funny how no one acknowledges that elk natural congregate as they are a herding animal.
Sorry, I have got to run as I need to get up to Jackson.
Kisses and Hugs to all………………
– – – —
Don’t go, Bob! Lay off the hay. You can say “no.” We have a 12-step program for guys like you. Ralph
Here is my letter to the editor of the Jackson Hole News & Guide about SFW’s upcoming Hay Day at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole:
Editor
I see that the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife are going to burden the citizens of Jackson Hole with another dreary and dusty Hay Day, delivering hay to the National Elk Refuge in a vain and foolish attempt to prove their absurd claim that a bale of hay is worth an acre of habitat.
So much for a scientific understanding of elk and wildlife management.
Rather than proving that a bale of hay is worth an acre of habitat, SFW is merely demonstrating its rationally inexplicable determination to bolster the chances for an epidemic of chronic wasting disease on the Refuge.
I hope the citizens of Jackson Hole are prepared for it.
Sincerely,
Robert Hoskins
Where do I send money to get rid or the real predator, Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife?????
Jeff E,
Yes, here it is – I’ll check to see if it’s still standing (you have a good memory):
A Wyoming law that has not garnered any attention and desperately needs some light shed on it is W.S. 23-3-103(b). It states the Game and Fish Commission can designate areas where “specified trophy animals may be taken in the same manner as predatory animals without a license.” In other words, where the wolf would be managed as a trophy animal, the Game and Fish Commission could, at its sole discretion, allow those wolves to be killed without a license, in any manner, by anyone, at any time.
Wyoming Statute 23-3-103(a) states “predatory animals and predacious birds may be taken without a license in any manner and at any time.” Wolves, where classified as “predators”, could be poisoned, trapped and then tortured to death, shot from planes, or run over by snowmobiles or ATVs. Their pups, still in their dens, could legally be burned alive. So much for the “fair chase ethic” promoted by Wyoming Game and Fish. The sad reality is wolves could be killed by any sick and twisted method imaginable. Currently, other predators such as coyotes and foxes can be killed by any manner. The use of poisons and other inhumane methods of killing should be outlawed, regardless if the animal is listed as a predator or not.
—
skyrim said: “The Jimmie Swaggert of hunting ministries. “Keep those checks coming brethren and blessings from above are on the way”
skyrim, I laughed my arse off…! Thanks…!
—
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
I said, to Bob Wharff: “I wouldn’t trust you as far as I could throw you.”
Ah, Bob, that’s what we mountain folk call a “saying.” You sophisticated city folk might call it a colloquialism.
Bob Wharff, (BW), Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming, said: “Yep, Hey day tomorrow in Jackson. Funny how no one acknowledges that elk natural congregate as they are a herding animal.”
Hey, Bob, yes, of course, elk are herding animals but those herds frequently MOVE unless they’d held by ARTIFICIAL FEEDING.
—
Folks, note that Bob Wharff, (BW), Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming, failed to answer my direct question: what is Sportmen for Fish and Wildlife of Wyoming’s official position on predators and predator management?
Also note that he’s failed to respond to the two coyote killing incidents sponsored by his organization that I mentioned above.
I’m not an attorney, but the prima facie evidence is that his organization is anit-predator, contrary to what he’s said: “Our groups is neither in league with private landowners, outfitters, the devil, or anti-predator.”
Wadda ‘ya say, Bob?
Does Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming wanna kill those wolves like you kill those coyotes?
—
Mack P. Bray
wildlifewatchers@bresnan.net
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
I’m going to be gone for a week, but it doesn’t mean I’m not with you. I’m going to Califorina to drum up more support for more environmentalist groups. Yea wolves!!!!!!
BW
You state that predators are not the best method of managing wild populations as they cannot be stopped once they are released. How did all those “wild populations” manage to exist before YOU came along? Did the unchecked numbers of predators wipe out the herds of elk, deer and buffalo? Oh, thats right, the vast herds of buffalo were “managed” into near extinction. And now you want to “manage” the wolf into extinction for a second time. Why should anyone (including all those millions who contribute to legitimate wildlife orgs.) trust you who have proven, and stated that your intentions are the same as those with the “pioneer spirit of hunting” who exterminated our wildlife in the first place? Do you realize how barbaric and backward you appear to the rest of the world?
Mack: I hunt coyotes, does that mean I am anti-predator? NO, I am going hunting coyotes tomorrow morning though. Also, they also protect elk/deer, yet they kill elk/deer. So are they anti-elk/deer. NO. Please use some common sense Mack. Also Mack, SPW has done FAR MORE for wildlife than you ever will!!!! Far more. See they actually DO something, versus just whine and complain on Ralph’s blog. It’s called action. Yes they manage for elk/deer, but when they protect and benefit habitat does that not benefit ALL wildlife that lives in that habitat? So they shoot some coyotes!! Who cares!! They DO stuff!! They take action. I personally have helped install 4 guzzlers in the desert in conjunction with SPW. Guess what, alot more than just deer/elk use those guzzlers. I helped tear down old barb wire fences. Mack just please stop complaining!
Cat: I think you are confused, hunters/sportsmen are the ones that past litigation to protect bi-game species. Like BW stated we and OUR funding is what helped bring elk/deer populations BACK to where they are today. I am not, nor is SPW for total extermination of ALL predators. Please dont be so ignorant.
Elkhunter
And that coming from a guy who can’t even spell fish…………….. Tell me E.H., did you vote for school vouchers? ;-))
Skyrim: You got me Skyrim!! You got me!! OUCH, that hurt!
I’ve been reading about this Hay for Elk program that SPW has going down in Jackson. This is really a misguided I think. I’d like to see Sportsman’s groups protecting habitat than unnaturally feeding ungulates. When are we going to learn that LARGER herds doesn’t equal HEALTHIER herds?
I’ve been following this matter for quite some time now and although I may not be American, though I’d throw my coins in for what its worth.
If we trail back about 60 years ago, when the wolf was on the way out thanks to the hunting and ranching communities the governments and state officials had no conscience to release the pressure on wolves until the last one was shot. The reason behind the extermination was to increase the amount of big game for hunters and ‘sportsmen’ to shoot and farmers wanted more land to cultivate their livestock. In 1975, the FWS established the foundations for the Wolf Recovery project. 20 years pass before the plan is bought to reality, the delay is thanks to the complaints of hunters and farmers.
Whilst many hunters complain about the depletion of ‘big game’ herds and place the blame solely on the wolf. The complaints also involve the wolf being Canadian. Although the wolves reintroduced were from Canada, the basic truth is that the Canadian wolf is merely another name given to the Gray Wolf. The animals from Canada were chosen specifically for their selection of prey.
The wolf is an apex predator which survives 99.9% on meat, preying particularly on large animals like elk, yet it will devour small prey – rabbits and other rodents, coyotes and foxes. A principle with apex predators is their ability to adapt to new prey situations, the wolf will not breed when food is hard to come by. I find it amusing that so many people believe that they need to kill a species that has obviously been taking care of itself long before European settlement.
As for the coyote ‘outbreak’ that is a result of the wolf extermination last century. And the amount of elk these people in Idaho are used to is an overpopulated and unhealthy state. Cold truth is, when all is said and done, it is the European settler that is the introduced pest, not the wolf. And still the hunters of Idaho have learned NOTHING in 120 years. This is ridiculous and the state will suffer for its folly.
John (canislupus): Who says that ID elk are overpopulated and unhealthy? Can you state your source?
I’m not an attorney, but the prima facie evidence is that his organization is anit-predator, contrary to what he’s said: “Our groups is neither in league with private landowners, outfitters, the devil, or anti-predator.”
Wadda ‘ya say, Bob?
Mack:
Your answer is on the blog talking about “Hay Day”.
Cat:
Without a doubt wildlife numbers were drastically different when European’s first came on the scene. As far as what I recall reading about the earliest trips, bison and antelope appeared in great numbers. Elk were a plains animals. Deer and big horn were mentioned but only in passing. The Lewis & Clark Expedition states that at one point in time the killed their stock because they were starving to death. Several tend to think that we had the number of ungulates then that we have today. This is not true. It was Sportsmen; however, that decided to regulate themselves and established the current wildlife management system still implemented today. Now you desire to feed these wild animals to the wolves which were introduced and are much larger then native wolves. Which by the way, the wolves from the North, being larger in stature, would have quickly exterminated. No one seems to be concerned that the introduction of this non-essential, experimental population definitely caused the extermination of our native wolves. Why? These actions seem to point at an alternative motive for this introduction. Could it be that some people hate ranchers so much that they would sacrifice one species to accomplish their ends?
elkhunter
People from Idaho, namely the biologists from the Wolf Education and Research Centre, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (not the IDFG – the board of game, several regional representatives, outfitters and ranching lobbies… as well as a diner [why one may ask?]… have members on the IAWC).
The number of elk in Idaho currently number 25 000 from the 28 000 individuals in 1995. 17% above healthy population.
BW
Let me get this straight, you believe that the extermination of our native wolves was caused by introduction of a non-native species ( and not due to the multi agency campaign to extirpate them at ranchers behest ) ?? And you also believe that the introduction ( as apposed to the actual RE-introduction ) was accomplished by an unnamed group of individuals who so hate ranchers that they would sacrifice the native species for the non-native???
The problem I see with your theory is that there were no native wolves left when the RE-introduction occurred. So what native species was being sacrificed??? Another problem is that no one hated ranchers until they started killing OUR (the Nation’s) RE-introduced wolves, which were RE-introduced at great cost to all of us and have proven to be far more valuable ecologically than first expected. The presence of wolves is far more ecologically/environmentally beneficial than the cattle industry, this is why efforts to sustain them recieve far more support nationally and internationally than does the decidedly wildlife/environment unfriendly ranching industry. Simple as that. It’s no great conspiracy as you would like to believe. The only connection I see is that Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are full of conspiracy seeking, anti- government, paranoid, gun toting, right wing extremist who should probably seek therapy rather than someone to blame for their self-induced losses. The wolf is merely a symbol government/environmentalist interference in their lives. If they can’t kill the environmentalist or agents, they will settle for killing the wolves.
Elkhunter,
I am not confused nor ignorant. Hunters are only partly responsible for litigation introduced to protect only SOME wildlife. The only thing I am confused about is why anti-wolfers continue to argue with people on this website who are obviously not going to buy into the rantings of paranoid conspiracy seekers. Who instead, wish to contribute to the protection of our (and their’s as well) environment and wildlife. What are you trying to accomplish??? After all, you don’t see any of us infiltrating the anti wolf websites.
BW says,
“…. the wolves which were introduced and are much larger then native wolves. Which by the way, the wolves from the North, being larger in stature, would have quickly exterminated. No one seems to be concerned that the introduction of this non-essential, experimental population definitely caused the extermination of our native wolves…. ”
I see this standard bit of misrepresentation all the time Bob, but no one ever has the facts to back the argument. Can you?