See a wolf... what would you do?

[bigngreen]

You need to look at what wolf was present in MT prior to the introduction, it is NOT the same wolf that we've had in this area and never did get completely killed of. Prior to the introduction we had plenty of wolves, but they were not the large apex predator that was introduced, they were the native wolf that was doing just fine with very few issues they did not multiply at this rate, they did not make huge impacts on the prey species, they did not wipe out our entire moose population. The largest pack of native wolves I know of was 7 members, that's it, the most I've ever tracked in a pack was 4. I've found very few kills from the wolves that were here they left very little, never had them come to my hounds while running lions even though they were in the area. This is not the case with the introduced wolf!!!

I have no interest in managing this introduced wolf I want it gone, this is not the apex predator for this ecosystem and it's abundantly clear.

 

[Scot E]

But they were exterminated in the western states. Which is why they were re-introduced. They weren't introduced as a non-native species. They were re-introduced to lands they'd inhabited long before the white man arrived. Even within this thread there's the claim they're an invading non-native species in these western States. They were abundant until they were trapped, hunted, and poisoned to extermination.

They weren't exterminated in the Western States. That is one of the big lies. Northern Idaho and Montana have always had timber wolves being so close to Canada. Like I mentioned before there were wolves in the lower parts of ID, MT, and WY as well. I guess my point is that I don't for a minute buy that this "reintroduction" was for the purpose of wolf proliferation. They were already here. It also wasn't becuase they were endangered, there are 100's of thousands throughout the whole world and 10's of thousands in and around the Rockies. Now comes the grizzly bear "reintroduction". Like they aren't here now. Hell, maybe we can do some Jurassic park science and reintroduce the sabre tooth tiger too. They were after all originally here! Not snarling at you Phorwath, just at what I deem to be bad science based more on money and politics than any real care for wildlife.

They weren't introduced as a non-native species. They were re-introduced to lands they'd inhabited long before the white man arrived. Even within this thread there's the claim they're an invading non-native species in these western States.

The non-native or invasive wolf argument is not a topic I am willing to dismiss. Prior to 1994 I had multiple encounters with wolves in Idaho in some of the most rugged parts of the Sawtooth Mountains. Beautiful creatures and great experiences each time! In every case they were much smaller than the ones reintroduced. They were also much more cautious and elusive.
There are only a couple options here.
1. All the packs I saw were immature wolves:very unlikely. 2. The species of wolves in Idaho prior to the re-introduction were not timber wolves. Very possible. 3. Somehow the Idaho wolves prior to 1995 had grown smaller compared to their ancestors: Devolution perhaps
I am not saying I have the answer to this and I realize my info is anecdotal but there are a lot more folks saying similar things than just me and the funny thing is they are just good ol boys that work hard and grew up in this country, not some suited up politician trying to convince me of something. Sorry but I have a lot more faith in my neighbors than I do in some politician or government scientist that is very likely motivated by forces I can't see.

Option #2 is really the only options that makes sense to me. Idaho fish and game biologists have off the record made some comments that would leave me to believe that there is a genetic difference as well. I just find it interesting that we can shut down major industries to find out exactly which variation of the striped green tree frog is being harmed but in this case there is zero information on potential genetic differences. Interestingly, with the 2nd go-around of wolf re-introduction into the States, the feds are now very serious about making sure they get pure genetic Mexican wolves for reintroduction into Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. They are either learning from their mistakes or are making sure there isn't that argument to use against them this time.

I am primarily noting my observation of how resistant people, including hunters, are to change. Wipe out the western timber wolf and after a generation or two they're considered an invasive, non-native species? The Indians managed to survive with wolves competing for the available game species. With modern wildlife management, we can often minimize the wild swings in populations of predator/prey species that commonly occur when simply left to mother nature.

I guess I look at it a little differently. I am not resistant to change per se. But I am very resistant to the federal government and environmentalist groups outside of our State telling us how to manage elite predators. Idaho chose long ago to bolster big game populations for the purpose of industry, recreation and food. IMO, the States and their citizenry have every right to do so. Therefore States should have the right to manage predators at lower numbers so big game numbers can be increased to reached the desired goals. We are not being allowed to do this and it is at the cost of our big game herds and 100's of millions of dollars that have been spent over the last 40-50 years.

Also, the Indians survived with wolves because nature was the only regulating force at that time. The ebb and flow of predator vs prey was naturally balancing. We do not live in that world any longer. We have artificially bolstered our big game numbers with sound management practices and have now introduced an elite predator to the mix that can't be managed. I would think most folks would see this for what it is, a recipe for disaster. And not just for the industry, recreation, food source and big game numbers but also for the wolves. If left unchecked the food supply will continue to crash and the wolves will starve to death until a balance is met. I wonder what all the environmental wackos will be saying when their cash cow is seen all over TV dieing one of the worse deaths possible. Like you said some wolves will try about anything to survive and WILL end up attacking a human and then all hell will break loose here. You think the wolves were persecuted in the late 1800's, wait till the something like this happens. It isn't going to be pretty. State management is the only answer and I would prefer that management to be based on the original agreement of 15 packs and 150 wolves in Idaho. This is the best way to help our economy and regain our recreational activities.

States have successfully managed other elite predator like bears and cats for 50 years. So why can't they do it with wolves? The answer is simple. There is far more wrapped up in this than wildlife management. Unfortunately it is at the very bottom of the priority list.

Scot E.

 

[Scot E]

You need to look at what wolf was present in MT prior to the introduction, it is NOT the same wolf that we've had in this area and never did get completely killed of. Prior to the introduction we had plenty of wolves, but they were not the large apex predator that was introduced, they were the native wolf that was doing just fine with very few issues they did not multiply at this rate, they did not make huge impacts on the prey species, they did not wipe out our entire moose population. The largest pack of native wolves I know of was 7 members, that's it, the most I've ever tracked in a pack was 4. I've found very few kills from the wolves that were here they left very little, never had them come to my hounds while running lions even though they were in the area. This is not the case with the introduced wolf!!!

I have no interest in managing this introduced wolf I want it gone, this is not the apex predator for this ecosystem and it's abundantly clear.

There was a landowner near McCall that had the F&G come in and destroy 2 packs that were denned up on his property. They expected to kill about 20 wolves and ended up killing close to 60. I completely agree that these packs sizes were not what was seen before the reintroduction in the mid 90's.

Scot E.

 

[bassin93]

Being a fellow Montanan, I whole hardily agree with bigngreen. I will do my part to reduce the wolf population however I can. I have as many tags as I do rounds loaded up.

These were shoved down our throats by a bunch of know it alls and look what its done to our game herds. As far as I am concerned the fwp can kiss my furry butt.

 

[Pdvdh]

If I'm wrong on this species of wolf then my apologies. The PBS show I watched on the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park led me to believe wolves had historically been present in Yellowstone. I heard no mention of these introduced wolves being non-native, analogous to an invasive species. That practice is universally resisted by USFW Service in Alaska and everywhere else I've read about.

So what became of the western wolves? I have always read and believed they were exterminated. Is there a reason those original western plains wolves were not re-introduced? Are they extinct? Is the timber wolf the closest viable genetic relative to the wolves that used to inhabit the west? I expect the answer to my questions are that the timber wolf or grey wolf is the closest available match to the specific sub-species of wolf that originally lived out west, and that's why the USF&W Service chose to re-establish the area with this species of wolf. If a viable population of the exact sub-species of wolf that used to inhabit the western states was available, USF&W Service would surely have transplanted that same sub-species of wolf back into the same geographical areas they used to inhabit. Bacause that has always been their policy, to my understanding. Which leads me back to, the wolves that originally inhabited the area were virtually exterminated such that transplanting them back into their homeland wasn't a viable option. So if there's an expert on the sub-species of wolves posting here, I'm all ears to be educated on the finer points of the sub-species of wolves, those exterminated and extinct, and those surviving.

If other members think this Post constitutes fighting, then that's by their own definition and choice.

My opinion is that if the organized hunting community unites behind the stated policy that wolves should be exterminated from the country that they historically inhabited because the big game species in those areas should be prioritized for the exclusive use of hunters, that hunters will damage their cause more than they'll help it. Alaska is about as pro-hunting as it gets, yet such a policy would never prevail - not even up here. You've got the ranchers that might join the cause to rid the land of wolves, but you've also got a lot of non-hunters that use public lands. And on any Federal Lands, you've got the input of citizens from every other State in the country that sound in with fully equal affect as those residents within the States that the Federal Lands are located within.

Anybody ever heard of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge located north of Alaska's Brooks Range? Alaska has no control over whether or not oil is ever developed in ANWR. All Federally owned land.

 

[Pdvdh]

Also, the Indians survived with wolves because nature was the only regulating force at that time. The ebb and flow of predator vs prey was naturally balancing. We do not live in that world any longer. We have artificially bolstered our big game numbers with sound management practices and have now introduced an elite predator to the mix that can't be managed. I would think most folks would see this for what it is, a recipe for disaster. And not just for the industry, recreation, food source and big game numbers but also for the wolves. If left unchecked the food supply will continue to crash and the wolves will starve to death until a balance is met. I wonder what all the environmental wackos will be saying when their cash cow is seen all over TV dieing one of the worse deaths possible. Like you said some wolves will try about anything to survive and WILL end up attacking a human and then all hell will break loose here. You think the wolves were persecuted in the late 1800's, wait till something like this happens. It isn't going to be pretty. State management is the only answer and I would prefer that management to be based on the original agreement of 15 packs and 150 wolves in Idaho. This is the best way to help our economy and regain our recreational activities.

States have successfully managed other elite predator like bears and cats for 50 years. So why can't they do it with wolves? The answer is simple. There is far more wrapped up in this than wildlife management. Unfortunately it is at the very bottom of the priority list.

Scot E.

We're probably drifting off-topic. Nature's ebb & flow of predator-prey populations is indeed naturally balancing, but the natural swings can be awfully extreme. Those predator-prey animals aren't thinking about maintaining maximum sustained yield. Only about survival. Humans can, given the proper tools, resources and authority, manage wildlife populations to greatly reduce the extreme swings of wildlife populations that most typically occur if solely left to mother nature and the natural predator-prey relationship. Much of Alaska is so wild that the natural ebb & flow is still in effect. And we do observe some pretty wild swings in caribou and moose populations. Minimizing the extreme natural swings of the pendulum in predator-prey populations is one of the goals of wildlife management. So my point with reference to American native's survival in competition with the wolves was: that if under the extreme predator-prep population swings that existed without professional wildlife management, the native Indians (which were heavily dependent on wildlife) were able to survive, that with modern wildlife management today we should be even better able to achieve less extreme predator-prey population swings, and sustainable yield of the game resource.

I agree absolutely that there's more wrapped up in this than pure wildlife management for maximum sustained yield of the big game population. Wildlife management is attempting to include non-human predator's into the mix. AKA wolves. Because to the disappointment of many, the wildlife in this country doesn't exist for the exclusive use of, and harvest by, hunters... except from the perspective of some hunters... That's the clear unadulterated truth. Those other user groups create the source of the competition, conflicting priorities, and politics which prevents wildlife management for the sole use of big game hunters. Conflicting preferences from the other user groups IS the 'more that's wrapped up in this'. I like to see wildlife management biased towards hunting and hunters, and it very much is in Alaska. Especially on State-owned lands. Jump onto Federal Lands, even in the wilds of Alaska, and the influence of the other user groups from all over the country gets equal consideration. And then the fight begins.

And there-from the fight continues.

 

[Pdvdh]

phorwath,

These wolves introduced (introduced IS the correct term as something cannot be 're-introduced' that was never here in the first place) in to the Rocky Mountain west are not what was here before the wolves that were here were exterminated, as you say.

Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves - Black Bear Blog

I did read the majority of the article in this link. It confirmed that USF&W policy is to introduce native species. In fact, it states that introduction of a non-native species is against existing law. Which leads me to believe this specific point can be argued back and forth until the air turns blue. If USF&W Service is legally prohibited from introducing non-native species into any area, then clearly they felt the wolves they introduced out west were a native species. No?

I'm aware that coyotes in different parts of the country look different. Different sizes, different colors. Same with brown bears versus grizzly bears in Alaska and coastal Canada. Animals do evolve over time to a genetic strain that best enables their survival in the geographical region they live in. I'm tending to believe we're talking the same thing here with wolves. Even within the geographical area of Alaska wolves occur with differing coloration in different areas of the State. They also hang in differing pack sizes in different areas of Alaska, dependent upon whether their primary prey species is the relatively small blacktail deer in Southeast Alaska, huge Alaskan moose in SouthCentral Alaska, or caribou in other areas of the State.

Wolves have throughout American history, generated a love-hate relationship. Mostly the hate relationship. Thus the emotionally charged responses coming forward in this Thread. I suspect the subspecies argument must have been assessed and made prior to transplant of these wolves into the western States. And it's apparently an ongoing source of discussion and disagreement. This is analogous to opposing attorneys. They each hire their expert witnesses, who to no one's surprise, interpret the facts in the manner their clients prefer.

The anti-wolf comments evoked here come as no surprise. The political fight over the wolf in the western States will continue for a while. And then eventually the politics will settle into a wildlife management policy that pleases neither extreme fully, but is tolerated by the majority.

 

[justgoto]

If there was any interaction with the wolves and I, it would be in the form of dance.

 

[jamesmc2]

If there was any interaction with the wolves and I, it would be in the form of dance.

Now that I would like to see!

 

[extreme]

Four years ago I was on a elk hunt in wy.While I was glassing for elk I looked
down below me and there at 270 yards were two wolfs. They had no idea I
was there and the short of the long story is I didn,t shoot. Back at base camp
later that evening I told the outfitter about it and received a first class ***
chewing for not killing both of them.
Two days later we came up on a fresh kill or what was left of it and received a second *** chewing. Wolfs are beautiful majestic animals but they need to be
controlled.

 

[jmden]

I did read the majority of the article in this link. It confirmed that USF&W policy is to introduce native species. In fact, it states that introduction of a non-native species is against existing law. Which leads me to believe this specific point can be argued back and forth until the air turns blue. If USF&W Service is legally prohibited from introducing non-native species into any area, then clearly they felt the wolves they introduced out west were a native species. No?

I'm aware that coyotes in different parts of the country look different. Different sizes, different colors. Same with brown bears versus grizzly bears in Alaska and coastal Canada. Animals do evolve over time to a genetic strain that best enables their survival in the geographical region they live in. I'm tending to believe we're talking the same thing here with wolves. Even within the geographical area of Alaska wolves occur with differing coloration in different areas of the State. They also hang in differing pack sizes in different areas of Alaska, dependent upon whether their primary prey species is the relatively small blacktail deer in Southeast Alaska, huge Alaskan moose in SouthCentral Alaska, or caribou in other areas of the State.

Wolves have throughout American history, generated a love-hate relationship. Mostly the hate relationship. Thus the emotionally charged responses coming forward in this Thread. I suspect the subspecies argument must have been assessed and made prior to transplant of these wolves into the western States. And it's apparently an ongoing source of discussion and disagreement. This is analogous to opposing attorneys. They each hire their expert witnesses, who to no one's surprise, interpret the facts in the manner their clients prefer.

The anti-wolf comments evoked here come as no surprise. The political fight over the wolf in the western States will continue for a while. And then eventually the politics will settle into a wildlife management policy that pleases neither extreme fully, but is tolerated by the majority.

Did you read all the links I listed...? ...such as this one?:

Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves - Black Bear Blog

You mention in an earlier post about getting information from a PBS show. This is exactly the kind of place where you will NOT get the right information. The true story is not being mentioned at all through typical media channels, which should not be a surprise to anyone. This is an issue, like many others, where it is necessary to dig deep to find out what has transpired historically and what is happening now.

Edit: And, perhaps others can help me out here, but I don't know what the best way out of this issue is. The reality is that we are not going to be allowed to kill off all the wolves in the lower 48, so they need to be managed and that is where the big fight will be because all sides will not agree on what 'managed' means.

They are here now and aren't going away, even though though the way they were introduced likely killed off what was left of the natvive wolf population (unbelievable that the Feds allowed this to happen). I believe this may clearly show a philosophical and political anti-hunting and anti-second ammendment, anti-ranching, anti-grazing on federal land bent by the Feds. Clearly, if you introduce an apex predator of this type, even killing off native subspecies in the process, your goal is not about some lofty ideal of bringing a native animal back to its native habitat. So what is the goal?

It is just incredibly unfortunate that the information mentioned in my link above wasn't followed through on by was apparently ignored by the Feds.

Listen to this link and you might start to understand why the 'Feds' have the bent they often have now: [ame="http://vimeo.com/28939194"]Crying Wolf - Jim Beers: The Demise of Conservation on Vimeo[/ame]

Like someone else said, if the ESA was taken this far and so obviously abused for political/philosophical gain, what's to keep us from bringing back sabre tooth tigers, once the understanding and technology exists? Hmmm...? When that occurs, you can bet there will be arguments made for just that based on the ESA.

 

[Scot E]

If I'm wrong on this species of wolf then my apologies. The PBS show I watched on the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park led me to believe wolves had historically been present in Yellowstone. I heard no mention of these introduced wolves being non-native, analogous to an invasive species. That practice is universally resisted by USFW Service in Alaska and everywhere else I've read about.

So what became of the western wolves? I have always read and believed they were exterminated. Is there a reason those original western plains wolves were not re-introduced? Are they extinct? Is the timber wolf the closest viable genetic relative to the wolves that used to inhabit the west? I expect the answer to my questions are that the timber wolf or grey wolf is the closest available match to the specific sub-species of wolf that originally lived out west, and that's why the USF&W Service chose to re-establish the area with this species of wolf. If a viable population of the exact sub-species of wolf that used to inhabit the western states was available, USF&W Service would surely have transplanted that same sub-species of wolf back into the same geographical areas they used to inhabit. Bacause that has always been their policy, to my understanding. Which leads me back to, the wolves that originally inhabited the area were virtually exterminated such that transplanting them back into their homeland wasn't a viable option. So if there's an expert on the sub-species of wolves posting here, I'm all ears to be educated on the finer points of the sub-species of wolves, those exterminated and extinct, and those surviving.

If other members think this Post constitutes fighting, then that's by their own definition and choice.

My opinion is that if the organized hunting community unites behind the stated policy that wolves should be exterminated from the country that they historically inhabited because the big game species in those areas should be prioritized for the exclusive use of hunters, that hunters will damage their cause more than they'll help it. Alaska is about as pro-hunting as it gets, yet such a policy would never prevail - not even up here. You've got the ranchers that might join the cause to rid the land of wolves, but you've also got a lot of non-hunters that use public lands. And on any Federal Lands, you've got the input of citizens from every other State in the country that sound in with fully equal affect as those residents within the States that the Federal Lands are located within.

Anybody ever heard of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge located north of Alaska's Brooks Range? Alaska has no control over whether or not oil is ever developed in ANWR. All Federally owned land.

PBS ought to stand for the Progressive Bull Shi**ers instead of the Public Broadcasting Service. A much more accurate description IMO. They are highly political. Just look at the hot water they are in over the Sesame Street food stamp episode they ran. Their liberal leaning political standing is a long running issue with many.

Only speculation on my part but I believe they were wiped out by the timber wolves. I know for a fact that entire coyote populations have been wiped out by them. They just don't put up with competition by other wolves or other animals. Not the wolves fault as they are just doing what they do but it is all the more reason why we need sound and aggressive management. Not 15 years of politics and green weenie lawsuits.

It sounds to me like we just have a different trust level of the government. I would love to trust them to do what is right but just don't see anything come to fruition very often. What is it the feds do well again?

Which leads me back to, the wolves that originally inhabited the area were virtually exterminated such that transplanting them back into their homeland wasn't a viable option. So if there's an expert on the sub-species of wolves posting here, I'm all ears to be educated on the finer points of the sub-species of wolves, those exterminated and extinct, and those surviving.

There have been experts talking about this. Some of the links in previous posts mentions this. I just don't find the practice of introducing an animal that is close to 50% larger in size good science. Heck, all the biologists theorized that the wolves main diet would be deer and they wouldn't really bother elk. Coyotes bother elk and they only hunt in pairs usually. Cats and bears take a toll on elk numbers and they are sole predators, but wolves won't bother elk herds? I am just a good ol boy from Idaho but it kinda makes me worried when I seem to have a better understanding of what is going to happen than the biologists. Plus elk just tastes better than deer so that by itself should have been an indicator! Just another reason I don't trust the feds for much of anything. They are either extremely ignorant or extremely biased. I vote for the latter.

I don't think anyone is taking offense to this conversation. I think it is good to talk about this kind of issue. But more importantly I agree with Jmden from an earlier post when he stated that we all need to be careful where we get our info and who we choose to believe. There is a lot of bad info out there, much of it being intentionally disseminated, and we need to be careful what we believe and what we spread because they truth is what should prevail here. Not propaganda based on politics and greed.

My opinion is that if the organized hunting community unites behind the stated policy that wolves should be exterminated from the country that they historically inhabited because the big game species in those areas should be prioritized for the exclusive use of hunters, that hunters will damage their cause more than they'll help it. Alaska is about as pro-hunting as it gets, yet such a policy would never prevail - not even up here. You've got the ranchers that might join the cause to rid the land of wolves, but you've also got a lot of non-hunters that use public lands. And on any Federal Lands, you've got the input of citizens from every other State in the country that sound in with fully equal affect as those residents within the States that the Federal Lands are located within.

Anybody ever heard of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge located north of Alaska's Brooks Range? Alaska has no control over whether or not oil is ever developed in ANWR. All Federally owned land.

Big game prioritization isn't for the sole benefit of hunters. Hunting and its associated activities is a large sector of our economy. It seems counterproductive to me to buildup a sector of the economy for 50+ years just to have it destroyed by unsound management practices and outside influences. I understand your point about ANWAR and federal lands but these are just classic examples of how the Feds have taken over too much power from the States. You won't be able to convince me to just sit back on my laurels and do nothing just because there are lousy laws and policies in place. This kind of thing is exactly what has got this country in the mess it is in today. The good folks of this country have been asleep and the crazies have taken over. We better get back in the fight or we are in real trouble on many fronts.

One point that I do disagree with you on is regarding the prioritization of big game herds for hunting. I would argue hunters should have top priority. At least in the lower 48 the funds to manage wildlife comes mostly from hunting and fishing dollars gathered by licenses and tag fees. I don't see any wildlife viewing or environmental activist organizations donating a dime of money toward management. In addition much of the money to keep the mountain roads usable comes from our off road vehicle licenses and RV licenses. The trail systems are kept open by motorcycle trail associations mostly. I just find it awfully frustrating that hunters by in large care more about wildlife than anyone else, and show it by the support they give in dollars and time invested yet we are told by some to just sit back and not fight for our beliefs,traditions, way of life and for wildlife. You take hunters and fisherman and their money out of the system and we have no wildlife to manage.

you've got the input of citizens from every other State in the country that sound in with fully equal affect as those residents within the States that the Federal Lands are located within.

This is another big problem. Hunters and fisherman are much more silent in voicing their opinions than are environmentalists and other organizations. Most of us are too busy working hard and raising families. These green organizations are extremely organized. A simple e-mail is sent out to their masses and in a few hours there are tens of thousands of e-mails sitting at a senators inbox. It is one of the reasons we are loosing this fight. It seems that there are way more of them than there really are. This is one of the reasons I really push Big Game Forever. They have a very easy to use site where you can send an e-mail to any Senator or Representative and it only takes about a minute. I even use their site to send my opinion on other issues, it is just so easy to use. They are working very hard to get as many people on their list as possible. If we can get organized we stand a much better chance of having our voices heard and getting things done that are in the best interest of ourselves and TRUE wildlife management.

Scot E.

 

[Scot E]

Did you read all the links I listed...? ...such as this one?:

Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves - Black Bear Blog

You mention in an earlier post about getting information from a PBS show. This is exactly the kind of place where you will NOT get the right information. The true story is not being mentioned at all through typical media channels, which should not be a surprise to anyone. This is an issue, like many others, where it is necessary to dig deep to find out what has transpired historically and what is happening now.

Edit: And, perhaps others can help me out here, but I don't know what the best way out of this issue is. The reality is that we are not going to be allowed to kill off all the wolves in the lower 48, so they need to be managed and that is where the big fight will be because all sides will not agree on what 'managed' means.

They are here now and aren't going away, even though though the way they were introduced likely killed off what was left of the natvive wolf population (unbelievable that the Feds allowed this to happen). I believe this may clearly show a philosophical and political anti-hunting and anti-second ammendment, anti-ranching, anti-grazing on federal land bent by the Feds. Clearly, if you introduce an apex predator of this type, even killing off native subspecies in the process, your goal is not about some lofty ideal of bringing a native animal back to its native habitat. So what is the goal?

It is just incredibly unfortunate that the information mentioned in my link above wasn't followed through on by was apparently ignored by the Feds.

Listen to this link and you might start to understand why the 'Feds' have the bent they often have now: Crying Wolf - Jim Beers: The Demise of Conservation on Vimeo

Like someone else said, if the ESA was taken this far and so obviously abused for political/philosophical gain, what's to keep us from bringing back sabre tooth tigers, once the understanding and technology exists? Hmmm...? When that occurs, you can bet there will be arguments made for just that based on the ESA.

Some really good points here. I agree, they are here now, we won't get rid of them so what is the next step. In my mind it has got to be permanent management by the states. I think this is one of the reasons BGF is working on a congressional level. Also I think States and its citizens need to insist that we stick to the original numbers agreed on by all parties involved. 15 packs and 150 wolves per state. State officials and Fish&Game have all kowtowed to this and made more and more concessions but managing to those numbers would be ideal. Unfortunately this can't be done with hunting pressure alone. Not even close. Trapping and even more aggressive management by F&G will have to be used to keep the numbers in check. Especially in Idaho the terrain is just too rugged. And in our wilderness area hunters have pretty much stopped going in there because there is so little game so there is even less pressure there and fewer ways to get in to manage them.

You are also correct, this isn't just the USFWS or the State F&G agencies. This progressive disease is running through the Forest Service as well. I got into quite the argument this fall with some forest service agents. Interestingly it was a couple young agents that were spouting all this global warming nonsense and how man in the forest has caused all these problems. I felt like I was watching a glorified Bambi episode! They are closing down roads and campgrounds like crazy right now in the name of habitat or riparian areas etc. Some of these roads and campsites have been in place since my grandpa was young. They are still pristine and beautiful but for some unknown reason they need to be shutdown. There was an older officer with them who later came back and pretty much apologized for their behavior. In a very concerned tone he pretty much said that this is the kind of people that are being hired by the Forest Service nowadays and he is worried that the Forest Service he grew up loving is gone forever. He said the FS has pretty much turned into a Federal Green organization and has almost nothing in common with the FS of old.

We need to get informed. We need to get organized. We need to give of our time and money to get this thing back on track. In my mind it starts with electing officials that share our common goals and values. Most of the good folks are too busy making an honest living and raising families to get involved but this is really part of the problem. It leaves all the knuckleheads to run for office. This means taking the time to learn about their records and help get the good guys elected and the bad guys ran out of town. I look at the list above and I don't have time nor does it sound very fun but if we don't start getting involved we are going to lose this country.

 

[Pdvdh]

One point that I do disagree with you on is regarding the prioritization of big game herds for hunting. I would argue hunters should have top priority. At least in the lower 48 the funds to manage wildlife comes mostly from hunting and fishing dollars gathered by licenses and tag fees. I don't see any wildlife viewing or environmental activist organizations donating a dime of money toward management. In addition much of the money to keep the mountain roads usable comes from our off road vehicle licenses and RV licenses. The trail systems are kept open by motorcycle trail associations mostly. I just find it awfully frustrating that hunters by in large care more about wildlife than anyone else, and show it by the support they give in dollars and time invested yet we are told by some to just sit back and not fight for our beliefs,traditions, way of life and for wildlife. You take hunters and fisherman and their money out of the system and we have no wildlife to manage.

Scot E.

If I stated prioritization of big game herds for hunting shouldn't be a top priority I didn't mean to. That has been the prioritization where I've lived, and harvest by hunting has typically been the primary tool used to keep game herd numbers from fluctuating to extreme highs, exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat, and then falling to extreme lows. And reduced hunting opportunities has been the primary tool to protect low game herd populations.

But management of big game herds for hunting hasn't been the sole, exclusive policy of wildlife managers for quite a number of years now. This is much more evident on Federal Lands in Alaska than it is on State Lands. There are national parks, refuges, wildlife viewing areas, areas closed to hunting and trapping, setbacks and closed areas from roads, established trails and campgrounds, etc., etc...

I think wildlife biologists are fairly capable at 'their jobs'. The problem is often that these employees don't get to define 'their jobs' and wildlife management policy independent of politically appointed administrators. Which is precisely why it's important for hunters to participate in the politics of these wildlife management issues.

If it weren't for the NRA, we would have lost many of the 2nd Amendment rights we've retained today, IMO. Every now and then the NRA might pull a boner or politically miss-step, but by and large they have served hunters and gun owners very well. With more and more user groups competing for control of wildlife management, it is vital that hunters participate on interests dear to their hearts.