Killing Machines - Wolves

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

I checked out the links you provided. All the links are from 1999 and 2000. Why are you providing three year old data from questionable sources? If you are such a concerned sportsman, why are you trying to mislead the readers with old data? What's the matter, can't find any newer information that fits your agenda? A lot has happened in three years. GO SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT IS TRUELY HAPPENING, I DID!

Have you read the Fanning report? Someone with better computer skills than I, please provide a link. Wait until FWP does their aireal counts and I will post their results. I will also try to get the details of the Idaho elk calf study and post them as well.

I organization I belong to is FNAWS.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, Those were the most up to date reports that I could find. If you can find something more up to date I'd gladly read it.

If you aren't sure how to copy and paste text or a URL just say so and somebody will give you instructions. They've been posted in some of the forums many times. Maybe a moderator could tell you where the instructions are.

 

[wolf]

Ithica, good information, that is the kind of information that has been published regarding our Moose herds. In many instances it is vry difficult for biologists to count calves because cow moose hide them during daylight hours. They don't stick around very often to see what is creating a disturbance.
Paul C., I am still unclear where you stand on the Wolf issue. what are you proposing? That is an interesting observation in Gardiner. I am puzzled that one guy saw a single "group of Elk numbering 120". Holy crow that is a huge herd by my standards. To see 120 moose or deer in one spot at one time it is unheard of. How can a limited habitat hold so many Elk, is that not a recipe for starvation and disease. How many herds of this size would be in the Gardiner area? I look forward to your "hard data"

 

[Lostagain]

120 elk in one bunch is nothing, esp around Gardiner. There was nearly 20,000 in the north herds, but that was a few years ago.

 

[wolf]

Ithaca, thanks for the info that is very similar to what bioligists up here are saying.

Paul C., I look forward to the "hard data" you mentioned, however I will be surprised if it indicates that the Herd animals are being wiped out. Your story about "a group of 120 elk" in Gardiner surprises me. I have never seen 120 moose or Deer herded together in one place. My only base of comparison wood be the woodland caribou which travel in large herds. In an area that has limited habitat would that not be the right conditions for starvation and disease. How many other "groups" of similar size would inhabit the area around Gardiner?

 

[wolf]

Paul, I am still not sure exactly where you stand with regards to wolves. I have stated clearly that I believe they have a place in the ecology of the forest, however ranchers should be able to defend their investments and hunter's should be allowed to harvest a certain number. My understanding is that Ithaca has stated that he feels they should be delisted but not eradicated. Where do you stand??

 

[tmsander]

Wolf - Are you seriousely questioning the normality of herds of 100+ elk based on your observations of moose and deer? You come across as smarter than that! You don't really need someone to explain why drawing conlusions on elk herding behaviour based on moose and deer is invalid, do you?

 

[BigHornyRam]

Here is a link. Give it a try. Read the long post on Yellowstone in particular. Also read the article by Merideth Taylor and let me know what you think.

http://www.bowsite/tf/threadid=264151&messages=66&forum=1#1054157

Wolf, you seem to like Ithaca's word better than mine, so maybe he can tell you that elk can pack up in big groups, then we can be clear on this subject. Yellowstone country is differnt than where you live so the wolf issues are differnt as well. Is this hard for you to understand?

Cont.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Damn, my link didn't work. Can someone help this hillbilly out?

Wolf,

To answer your question about where I stand on wolves here goes. I am not infavor of reintroduction, but that is mute point anymore. Natural return by the wolves like most of the ones around my area is OK. A few wolves are OK if the stay out of trouble (livestock), and they are carefully managed. If they kill livestock they should be killed, no second and third chances. No visits to Ted T's school of shock therapy. Funds to manage the wolves should come from the federal government. Management should be structured with hunters and hunter opportunity in mind. Fast action is needed in areas should problems arise. Ranchers should be able to protect their property- end of story. Wolves should be keep from states like Utah and Colorado until the Wolf becomes delisted.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-07-2003 09:51: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

Here is the long post from bowsite that paul is talking about. It is an excellent read!!!
Good find Paul.

For those of you who didn't read this on the other forum I thought I would post it here as it give a little different perspective.

Pete in Fairbanks copy and pasted this to Idaho wolf thread. I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here for those that didn't read it.

Like all coins, the wolf reintroduction has two sides. It's best to study and really understand what's happening before one jumps on aboard.

It is my belief that wolves outside the park need to be hunted and kept in check. And the sooner this can and does happen the better.

Here's what Pete posted on the Idaho wolf thread. Again Pete, I hope you don't mind me posting this information. I found it a very interesting read. Have a great bowhunt BB

THE YELLOWSTONE ELK SITUATION

I live on a horse ranch in the foothills of the Absaroka Mountains 25 miles north of Yellowstone National Park. I exercise my horses and myself in the mountains everyday year round. When I observe and participate in nature it is with the eye of a big game hunter and biology major, I received my degree from the University of Notre Dame, back in the early 1970's. In those days ecology was a science, now it has become a religion.

I've noticed a change in those mountains over the past 7 years, and I'm certain if the American people had any idea what was going on in Yellowstone and the surrounding area, they would be appalled and very angry. Prior to wolf introduction in 1995, there were 19,500 elk in the great northern Yellowstone elk herd, over 300 big horn sheep in the ten square miles around Gardiner, Montana, abundant moose, antelope and mule deer. Now we have fewer than 10,000 elk and 40 big horn sheep. Montana state moose biologist Kurt Alt tells us the moose are all but wiped out, the National Academy of Science in its' March 2002 report tells us that the antelope population is a small fraction of what it was. A Montana Game Warden north of Yellowstone Park tells us the mule deer population is also in real trouble. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wolf Project Coordinator admits in the press that there are 560 wolves and 150 pups this year with anywhere between 34 to 46 breeding pairs depending on your definition of breeding pair. The Project Coordinator himself, Ed Bangs says, "There are too many wolves." Despite intense public pressure to delist and control wolves, the outlook for delisting in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is very bleak. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife now wants to hold us hostage until Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado gets a good healthy dose of wolves.

Wolf introduction has become a big business. Defenders of Wildlife alone raise over $16,000,000 a year tax-free. Sending bulk mail to urban soccer moms with crosshairs on a wolf puppy telling them to send money to save wolves from being poisoned and their babies from being clubbed to death in their dens by the mean old ranchers. They never mentioned that the mean old rancher that would do this would be convicted of a felony and face a $100, 000 fine and a year in federal prison for violating the Endangered Species Act.

Wolf recovery is also big business for biologists. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has created a huge bureaucracy originally formed to introduce 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone Park, but now expanded to put wolves into any rural area in America where there is an agricultural or hunting culture. If you can't make money in spotted owls, then get into wolves, the DOT.com job for biologists.

Lawyers, especially lawyers, love wolves too! Environmental organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club; National Wildlife Federation have legal departments that rival IBM and GM in size. They are financialy motivated to sue over ESA issues. The Federal court system,according to Kris Nolan,Esq.USFWS routinely awards them fees and costs if they are the catalysts for legal action and win. What kind of lawyers like wolves? Ted Turner hosted 140 lawyers from the "Earth Justice League" at a resort a couple of miles from my home. One out of six called ahead and ordered a "vegan" diet which excludes any animal or fish product. I have no problem with their diet, just when they use the judicial system to impose it on the rest of us.

The organization I formed in 1999 has 3742 members, most of whom live in the area just north of Yellowstone. We have been calling attention to the total annihilation of our game herds for 4 years now and were roundly criticized as alarmists and extremists as the wolf recovery team assured the public through the dutiful press, that the elk herd which acts as a buffer between predators and our cattle industry was in fine shape.

Eventually our cries for help were heard this year by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Montana House Fish and Wildlife and Parks Committee, Dan Fuchs and Joe Balyeat. Both senior lawmakers accuse the wolf bureaucracy of a cover-up. They came down to count the ratios of calf to cow elk themselves. We went into the field and came up with a ratio of cow elk to last years surviving calves of 12 per hundred. This statistic was verified by the National Park Service survey that was released shortly there after.

The 23-year average that proceeded wolf recovery was 33 calves per hundred cows.The fur started flying in our State Legislature and in the Montana press when Carrie Schaeffer of Michigan Tech University, working under Dr. Rolf Peterson did a study that came to surface in 1998-1999,and was made public this past March'02. She counted 4600 head of elk. This was huge scientific sampling. She concluded that the calf to cow (elk) ratio was zero to ten per hundred, confirming our assertions over the past four years that a biological crisis of catastrophic proportions had been going on.

Yellowstone Park knew of the Schaeffer study, withheld the information from the American public in order to protect their wolf bureaucracy, and intentionally lied to the press for 4 solid years. The decision to surpress scientific information was made at the top by Glenn Plumb, Yellowstone's' supervisory biologist.

When wolf recovery was proposed in 1988, Congress appropriated monies to study the proposed experiment. Congress instructed those who made the request to introduce wolves that: hunting should not be hurt, the local economy should not be hurt, and the Grizzly Bear should not be impacted.

With these marching orders from Congress, a team of 15 PH. D's who specialized in Predator/Prey biology came back and published "Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to Congress and the Department of Interior Vol. 1" in 1991." They said the 250 square miles in and around Yellowstone could hold 78-100 wolves at full capacity if it was done over a 10-20 year period. This esteemed body of scientists insisted in 1991 and again in September 1995, because no one knew for sure what impact a new keystone predator would have on the unadapted prey species, that intensive monitoring of the prey should be done, otherwise the Yellowstone Ecosystem would be forever and irreparably harmed. (See P.11 Peterson, Gassaway & Messier report to DOI dated 9/95) America deserves to know who authorized the wolf recovery team to ignore the Delphi 15. Yellowstone Park and the wolf recovery team admitted in the Bozeman Chronicle in the winter of 2000 that these studies were not done each year citing bad weather, lack of funding, lack of equipment, and lack of qualified personnel.

America deserves to know why the mandated studies were not done. We in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have jumped through hoop after hoop trying to get the wolf delisted from the List of Endangered Species so we can manage this destructive predator and prolific breeder ourselves.

Like Islam has been hijacked by extremists, environmental organizations have been hijacked by extremists. They now threaten to terrorize us with their biological weapon the wolf. We can look forward to being tied up in court for eternity if we try and delist the wolf as an endangered specie from it's un-deserved protected status as; "experimental non-essential". The ultimate strategy is to buy more time for this predator to breed at a 34% rate per year. Each wolf eats a biomass of at least 25 Elk per year; not counting the surplus killing of elk calves. We now have at least 720 wolves; and in 3 short years we could easily be at 1732. This means 43,300 elk per year are going to be fed to wolves without any new replacement calves. Since Montana, according to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation only has 130,000 elk, it wont be long until the wolf turns its attention to beef cattle, in a degree much larger than is already occurring.

Chris Smith, Chief of Staff for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks stated May 31, 2002 to the press after hearing the U.S. Fish Wildlife service presentation regarding delisting the wolf " this will be tied up in political and legal knots for years to come."

Our only hope in Montana and the other affected states is asserting our sovereignty over our land and natural resources. I know that if I was to be elected Governor of Montana in '04 that I would set an agenda that would take our state, its land and its natural resources (of which wildlife is one) back from Federal Agencies and the environmental extremist organizations who have imposed their political agendas on us. Burdensome Federal interference and regulation has cost Montana jobs, tax revenue and impedes growth and development, placing it near the bottom (46) state economies.

It is grossly unfair that the livestock operator has to wait for a delisting that may never occur. It is a violation of the 5th amendment and its "takings" clause to turn these uncontrolled predators on his stock without compensation, going to bed each night wondering how much he will lose through the night. John Paul Hubbard, a rancher, bordering Yellowstone Park estimates that since wolves have been introduced in '95, has lost in excess of $100,000 but cannot prove his losses. Montana Stock Growers tell us that they believe that contrary to what the wolf recovery people admit to, wolf depredation of livestock in Montana is 500% to 700% more, but again losses cannot be proven.

The wolf is a nocturnal hunter, the "blood on the paws" policy of reimbursement places the burden of proof on the livestock producer. The heavy burden of identifying the ACTUAL PREDATOR rests squarely on the shoulders of the livestock producer. Just think about it, a criminal breaks into your home and kills a loved one and you are obliged to prove their guilt to law enforcement. There are a lot of criminals doing life in prison after a weaker standard of evidence was presented at their trial.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 specifically forbids the act be used for economic or social reasons. The predator Program should be acknowledged for what it is; a biological means to undercut the Taylor Grazing act, destroy the ranching business, and confiscate land when those businesses fail. Sounds like a conspiracy theory? You be the judge.

Mike Phillips, the movie star handsome, media savvy biologist who introduced the wolf into Yellowstone Park in '95 spoke to a group of 600 people from 44 states and 24 countries in Duluth, MN. On February 24, 2000. He said the goal of wolf introduction was to drive 30,000 ranchers from public lands. His power point presentation was video taped by the University of Minnesota and the International Wolf Center, Ely, Minnesota reported 2/25/00 on Page A20 of the "Minnesota Star Tribune", and the May edition of "Wyoming Agricultural". Three of "Friends of The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd" paid $206 to attend. Bob Hanson a retired investment banker memorialized the remarks in affidavit form. Now, fully realizing the implication of making those remarks in a public forum Phillips vehemently denies he made them. Mike Phillips and former Yellowstone National Park Superintendent, Mike Findley now work for Ted Turners' Endangered Species Fund, an organization that vigorously promotes wolves.

Turner is a self-described socialist and Americas' largest private landowner. The public has a right to know why former Yellowstone National Park Superintendent ignored Congress' instructions and the warnings given by Delphi 15. Only a Congressional investigation will be able to determine whether or not there was a Quid Pro Quo exchanging jobs for our wildlife, achieving a political end.

The American people apparently agreed with the early premise of wolf recovery into Yellowstone Park, and have learned to love wolves as featured on nature programs. They are entitled to know both sides of the story, not just the side that would be told by Aldo Leopold. Aldo Leopold, conservationist and bio-ethicist was born in 1887, the dawn of Theodore Roosevelt's conservation movement. At that time game herds, predators and natural resources were decimated to the point of crisis. Leopold wrote "you cannot love the game but hate the predators. You can regulate them, but not abolish them." Wolf recovery advocates aspire to be apostles of Leopold.

L.David Mech, the wolf biologist, for the past thirty years is his best-known disciple. Mech wrote in his book "The Wolf", that, "unfortunately, there still exists in certain elements of human society an attitude that any animal (except man) that kills another is a murderer....to these people the wolf is a most undesirable creature", fostering an attitude of us versus them, he went on to write "these people cannot be changed." If the wolf is to survive the wolf haters must be out numbered. They must be out financed, and out voted." You're either a wolf hater or you're in complete agreement with their science, values, press releases, tactics and philosophy. This leaves those of us who live in wolf country following the revolution in quite a dilemma. How do you clean up the mess made by zealots who overreached and exceeded the instructions of Congress and the parameters set by their own PH.D.s, known as the Delphi 15.

What Mech forgot to mention is that since 1937, when the Pittman Robertson Act began collecting $6 billion from sportsmen, that Americas' gameherds are in the best shape ever. Despite this fact, wolf advocates who want to feed our wildlife to their wolves are convinced that they and only they should have the exclusive say in Leopolds' version of regulation. When wolf advocates control the regulatory process, agendas and values that are anti-ranching, anti-property rights, and anti- hunting can be implemented.

Anyone who questions them is an enemy to be marginalized, attacked and diminished as in extremists, alarmists, or just plain ignorant. It is this exclusion from the adaptive management process, this arbitrary, arrogant, self-righteousness that has polarized people in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, brought law abiding citizens to the verge of civil disobedience and laid the ground work for what is commonly known as the "war for the west". What is the root of all this distrust?

Drs. Taylor and Walters warned in July '89 in a report to YNP and the Dept. of Interior of the potential for major conflict arising from wolf introduction. They called for thoughtful interaction among scientists, wildlife managers (state and federal) and resources users (ranchers and hunters). They concluded that "to introduce wolves before adaptive management has reached maturity and consensus would be irresponsible". Needless to say these warnings and recommendations not only went unheeded, but anyone who was not in the wolf introduction camp; livestock interests, state legislatures, fish and game authorities, outside scientists with a different opinion, or hunting interests, were systematically excluded from the process and routinely lied to.

It is because of this premeditated exclusion that our wildlife in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have been decimated and our livestock industry which relies on the wildlife as a buffer between predators is at great risk due to uncontrolled predators, especially that prolific breeder, who has no natural predators, the wolf.

Why in this time of national peril that follows the tragedy of 9/11 are we not unified in our democratic republic when our survival depends on it? In my view it is for one reason, it is over a theory, the theory of Natural Regulation. Remember that once there was a theory that the earth was flat. The theory of Natural Regulation is just as invalid, just as flawed and just as widely accepted as the flat earth theory was in the dark ages. The theory of natural regulation is the philosophical cornerstone of the social engineers in the extreme green movement. Without the theory of natural regulation, wildlife and forest managers would be accountable to the American public and responsible for their actions or inactions. The deep ecology movement has decided that man's presence, participation in, and stewardship of nature is unnatural and all wild places must be off limits to human activity. It is absolutely essential to those who politicize science in order to make it fit agendas, such as the special interests of environmental groups or that of governmental agencies, i.e. USFWS and NPS, to exclusively control the definition of natural regulation. For example, if forest fires wipe out a third of Yellowstone Park with a holocaust fire like it did in 1988, or wolves kill half the great Northern Yellowstone elk herd, it was just nature doing its' thing. No one to blame, no government jobs lost, no public outcry, no conflicting values from various stakeholders, no outside scientific debate or peer review.

This past March '02, the National Academy of Science made a profound impact that resonates throughout the scientific world. In a report that was dedicated to the study of alleged overgrazing of Yellowstone National Park the esteemed body of scientists categorically refuted the long held belief, that environmental organizations used to justify wolf introduction, that YNP was in crisis from overgrazing.

The highest scientific voice in the land, that rescued water starved ranchers in Klamath, Oregon, stated that the policy adopted by park authorities in 1971 of "Natural Regulation" was invalid and should be abandoned. Imagine how the proponents of the U.N. Wildlands Project or those who believe the entire Yellowstone ecosystem should be turned into a national park must have reacted!

Take away the theory of natural regulations from the social engineers of the deep ecology movement and you have taken away the thing they most rely on, public sentiment that drives funding for their organizations, their lawyers, and political support for their anti-property right, anti-ranching, anti-hunting, anti-second amendment extreme vegan agenda.

(For the entire report visit the academies website at www.nationaacademies.org)

We can only hope that YNP Superintendent Lewis will hold to her word and "follow the committees' recommendations", especially on page 103 where scientists from NAS advise regarding wolf and game herd management.

"Resolving these conflicts will require all the vision, intellectual capacity, financial resources and goodwill that can be brought to bear on them" We certainly hope so, Ms. Lewis because as this piece is written, we are told that we must rely on wolves naturally regulating their own numbers!

Since the Endangered Species Act has become a vehicle that is undermining the republic and state sovereignty over natural resources, allowing urban majority to impose its' political will on the rural minority, contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, it must be rewritten with all the affected stakeholders; state wildlife authorities, ranchers, hunters and private property holders at the bargaining table. To this point they have been systematically excluded from the process by the tax-exempt environmental foundations, their legions of lawyers incentivized to file lawsuits, and career bureaucrats who politicize science.

Only when the adaptive management process is followed prior to the listing or introduction of wolves (or any other real or manufactured endangered species) into your state should you even entertain the concept, otherwise you will suffer the same thing we have experienced in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; an unmitigated, unmanageable debacle which has long term implications and unintended consequences associated with this experiment gone horribly wrong with no end in sight.

Copywritten & Submitted for Publication 6/01/02 Robert T. Fanning, Jr. Chairman and Founder "Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc." P.O. Box 142 Pray, Mt. 59065

 

[wolf]

tmsander,
thanks for setting me straight it was a poor example that did not express the way i had intended. I was comparing apples to oranges.

Paul C,
you are mistaken to think I would rely on anyone's word more than another. We all interpret what another member is saying and agree or disagree. In the majority of Ithica's posts he had research to back up what he was saying. Hard facts allow me to forma better opinion. I agree with your observation that his links are outdated, alot could have happened since. Thanks for clearing up exactly where you stand on the Wolf issue, we are on the same page for the most part!! Your link put up by Michealr was very impressive.

 

[wolf]

Michealr,Paul C
throughout this discussion I have been a proponent of allowing Wolves to be re-introduced as long as you can hunt them and as long as Rancher's have the ability to protect their investment. I have been dead set against extermination because i dont' beleive we have the right. After reading the post you brought forward i admit it has me re-thinking. The fact is the re-introduction process did not account for hunting nor allow Ranchers to protect their investments. Biologists introduced a predator into an environment where they did not currently exist. By doing that it is possible that they have screwed up the natural balance??? I have been asking all along for proof that wolves have wiped out game animals, because I have not heard of nor seen this occur anywhere in the world. The drop in Elk and sheep numbers is dramatic, how are they tying them to the wolves? Is there any other factors playing a role in the significant declines ie. disease loss of habitat?? The hidden agendas outlined in the post anger me. To think that biologists, the very people who are in charge of monitoring and protecting our wildlife are selling out for jobs is disheartening but believable. I get the impression that the people who should care the most are covering up facts for political gain. Your comment that there are two sides to every issue is true. I am a skeptic by nature and would like to read more facts before I can form a solid opinion. If this information is in fact valid it would solidify that man's intervention in this situation has created unnatural results and therefore should be immediatley stopped and the damage control started.

 

[Michaelr]

Ithica has tried to nail me down as to my position on wolves, I believe his hatred of ranchers and public land use drive his position, and that is a shame. There are others who will use the wolf as a vehicle to try and stop hunting limit our ability to use our public lands,and that also is a shame.
I hold no animosity towards anybody who is straight forward with their thoughts, beliefs, agendas. I do get angry when people use things like this to further their hidden agenda, because they know it would be shot down if tried openly.
That in a nutshell is why I am against wolves. The wolf in an enviornment that can support it without all the controversy is a really magnificent animal. I believe that alaska with all the wild space is a good home, canada with its relativly small population and remote wild country is a suitable home.
the western united states with the number of people, the problems with livestock, all the hidden agendas, and politicing, the threat to hunting, and on and on and on, is not the place for the wolf.
I don't think it is fair to the wolf, or the people who have to live with them.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-07-2003 20:16: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

mike, BS. I don't have any "hidden agenda" and I don't hate ranchers. Why don't you quit telling lies about me and stick to the topic?

Go back to the start of this topic and read every post. Notice who starts making remarks about other posters without addressing the other poster directly? YOU.

If you'd stick to the topic and provide some factual information you might have some credibility.

Wolf, The biologists in Yellowstone and Jackson count elk on the Winter range every year. I'm hoping the census figures will be made public in another couple of months. Then we'll have a much better idea of what the facts are. I don't put any faith at all in the guesstimates on elk/cow/calf numbers any of these private anti wolf organizations are putting out.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-07-2003 21:06: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[tmsander]

Ithaca,
I sort of expected you to label the author of the above posted article a wacko. But I guess stating.... "I don't put any faith at all in the guesstimates on elk/cow/calf numbers any of these private anti wolf organizations are putting out.".... is close enough.

Why do you not put any faith in these estimates, but you do in those of the equally biased pro wolf organization?

 

[Muledeer4me]

Mike ,Great Post!!!
Wolf,please look through all the info. that mike and Ithaca have posted.
Ithaca's trick is to say other poster's are lying anytime they post info. different from his.
The fact that some of us live in or near the same area as him make's it easer for us to hear about ALL side's of these issue's,once some of us tryed to tell the other side we get told we lie and are called stupid.
Ithaca post's some great stuff,but there are indeed two side's to every story ,and one size fix doesnt work in every place.
Im not against the wolf ,I am against the way it was done and the lack of control those people living the closes to them have had.
I also dont like the link between the hate the rancher,and anit-hunting group's that support bringing back large predator's with no regard's for the family's living in those area's.

I do not think all the game will be wiped out,I do believe our hunting will need to be limited or stopped in some area's.
There is a push with-in some of the anti-hunting org. to use the wolf as a next step in stopping hunting.
People need to look close at all the info. that is being posted and follow the link's to see what the end result's are that any of these org. are working toward's.

A balance in nature?
Putting a stop to hunting?
Getting the rancher off of public land's?
Getting more land put into wilderness area's?
There are so many angle's to this wolf issue facing our state .

As far as seeing over 100 elk in a herd,I also have seen it.
Early in the season while scouting and late in the season when there is snow on the ground.
tmsander,good post ,I see you have been following some of the debate's and are understanding how it work's.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 07:35: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

tm, "Why do you not put any faith in these estimates, but you do in those of the equally biased pro wolf organization? "
Where did I ever say I did? I make sure both sides are heard. You all should be able to weigh the articles and information and figure out for yourself what to believe.

MD4M, "Ithaca's trick is to say other poster's are lying anytime they post info."

Mike didn't post info. He made a remark about me that is not true. You're trying to twist around what happened. Read the post over again.

Once again, I see that you're trying to make personal attacks instead of sticking to the topic.

 

[Michaelr]

Ithica, sorry bud.
I just call it as I see it.
And you have blasted ranchers and at every turn.

wolf,
I filmed a bunch of elk a few yrs ago.
One bunch was all Bulls and in one part of the video where you have a good look at the whole bunch I counted 76.
Another bunch gets kinda strung out and as they cross through a draw and I counted over 450 head.
Large herds of elk are not uncommon at all.
The first Bull I ever shot was in a herd of about 175

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 08:26: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

Here is another look at wolf reintroduction from a different angle

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wolves

Testimonial by Tim Sundles

In Jan. or Fed. of 1999 two wolves killed one of my neighbor's calves. The smaller and younger of the two wolves was radio-collared. The larger and older wolf (most likely the instigator in the cattle killing) was not collared.

USFWS personnel came in to capture and relocate the offending wolves.

From my family room windows I watched while several people hired by USFWS tried to catch the wolves for six days.

Two fixed wing airplanes chased and tracked the wolves for six days. On the sixth day a helicopter ran the smaller wolf up a steep mountain in several feet of snow. The wolf ran and struggled in the soft snow until he laid down, gave up and went into shock. Then he was was darted from the helicopter.

After the wolf was darted it took about three hours to get the helicopter basket attached to the helicopter. Guess what happens when a tranquilized, run-til-it-dropped, in shock wolf lays in the snow for three hours???? It gets hypothermia and dies! That's right!

When the wolf was finally helicoptered to the biologists who were gathered below my house it's body temperature was 10 to 12 degrees below normal. I stood and watched while biologists took the wolf's temperature with a rectal thermometer. I listened to their comments.

This wolf had a foul smell about him. I asked one of the biologists, "What is that smell from?" He responded with, "It's probably from an infection under the radio collar." He made the statement without even looking....... This tells me that infections under the radio collar are commonplace.

The biologist then cut the collar off and sure enough, there was a large, oozing, red infection all around the wolf's neck. The wolf's hair had fallen off where the infections was. This infection was so grotesque and festered that it could be smelled from several feet. Radio collars are man's invention. They obviously don't belong on wild animals!

After putting some salve on the infection the biologist put a new radio collar on the wolf along with a muzzle, and put the infected, in shock, hypothermic, unconscious wolf in the cab of a pickup and turned the heater on. A few of the locals (including myself) began to murmur about the pathetic treatment of the wolf and the biologists hopped in the truck and scooted out of there. The official word from the USFWS was that the wolf recovered and was later dumped in a new location. Most of us that saw the bad condition the wolf was in believe it died.

Please thing about his folks. For six days, several (about five to six) USFWS personnel were housed in motels and fed in restaurants. They drove several four-wheel drive pickups. Airplanes, helicopters and pilots were hired. The wolf was tortured and likely died. The large wolf could not be captured because he was not collared, but he was likely the offender and he got away! Rumor is that he was later killed by a local with one shot that cost about .50 cents.

So what did USFWS accomplish? Other than spending your taxes to torture and probably kill a wolf while letting the offending wolf escape? You be the judge.

I was opposed to this wolf "reintroduction" from the beginning. However I've become more polarized in my opposition after seeing more and more of this "program".

For all of you that are urbanized and did not realize this is what would happen to these wolves, see what USFWS and Congress has done?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[BigHornyRam]

Michaelr,

Thanks for helping me with this link. If any of you are interested Mr. Fanning, the author of the article will be doing a presentation at the Montana FNAWS fund raiser at the Bozeman Holiday Inn February 22 at 1:00 PM. Apperantly the wolf wackos are not happy with Mr Fanning. They have recently infected his computer with a high powered virus and distroyed it. It's going to get even more ugly as we approach delisting.

Wolf,

You now may be getting the picture why some of us are so angry and resentful about the reintroduction. We have been forced to eat a shit sandwich and it has left a bad taste in our mouth. I am not very good at getting my points across. I have been nasty towards you trying to do so. SORRY.

Ithaca,

tsander asked you your thoughts on the Wyoming plan on the SI board and you ignored him. I asked you here and you blew me off. Please tell us why you do not specifically like the plan.

Paul