Gray wolves, whose howls nearly disappeared from the Northern Rockies almost a century ago, have rebounded so strongly they can be removed from the endangered species list, federal officials said Thursday.
The decision marks a milestone in the saga of wolves, which were given federal protection in 1973 after hunting, trapping and poisoning nearly exterminated them in the Lower 48 states by the 1930s.
Federal and state officials hailed the delisting, calling it an unprecedented success in America's effort to find a place on the modern landscape for its most imperiled species.
They said wolves have filled most of the suitable habitat that has plentiful wilderness and prey and limited livestock and humans in the Northern Rockies.
"This is a significant day in the history of conservation." said Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett.
But conservation groups vowed to sue the federal government to stop the delisting, which will turn over wolf management to the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
The states' plans include hunting seasons for wolves, which will be regulated like elk, black bears, mountain lions and other game species.
Environmentalists said the delisting would lead to the slaughter of Canis lupus, a keystone predator that is only starting to regain a foothold in fragments of its historic range.
"It's a really sad day for wolves," said Jenny Harbine, an attorney for Earthjustice, which plans to take legal action on behalf of dozens of environmental groups. "Wolves in this region are on the cusp of a biological recovery, but now that they're delisted they're staring down the barrel of state management schemes that ensure they will never achieve recovery."
The delisting is to be published this week in the Federal Register.
It is scheduled to go into effect in late March, but environmental groups said they may seek an immediate injunction until their lawsuit is filed and ruled on by a federal judge.
The delisting by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service affects Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, where the wolf population has soared to more than 1,500, including at least 100 breeding pairs.
They are descendants of a handful of Canadian wolves that recolonized northwest Montana in the early 1980s and 66 wolves that were reintroduced in northwest Wyoming and central Idaho in the mid-1990s.
Dueling science
Supporters and opponents of the delisting offer dueling science about whether the region's wolves have enough numbers, habitat and genetic intermingling to stay healthy in a landscape where public sentiment has shifted in their favor but ranchers still consider them a threat to livestock and human safety.
Federal officials said wolves no longer meet the legal requirement of the Endangered Species Act because they have met the recovery goal since 2002. That goal was to have at least 300 individual wolves, including 30 breeding pairs, for three consecutive years in the three states.
The states have agreed to maintain a total population of 450 animals, including 45 breeding pairs, although the actual number likely will be 900 to 1,250 total wolves, federal officials said.
"These wolves have shown an impressive ability to breed and expand," said Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "They just needed an opportunity to establish themselves in the Rockies."
But Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for Defenders of Wildlife, said recent research shows the region needs at least 2,000 to 3,000 wolves that are connected across the entire region to be considered a healthy, self-sustaining population.
Federal officials said they will monitor the states' wolf populations and management actions for five years. Wolves can be returned to federal protection if their population drops too low.
Federal and state regulations allow wolves to be killed for attacking livestock, and the states also have adopted wolf hunting seasons.
More than $27 million in federal funds and private donations have been spent on wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies since 1974, including $3 million last year.
States will assume most management costs, although some federal funding is available.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to continue funding wolf programs through September for about $3.3 million.
Montana's wolf management is expected to cost about $1 million a year and be funded by public and private dollars, although no dedicated source of money has been identified.
Conservationists say recent studies show the region's wolves are genetically isolated and too few in numbers to create a healthy meta-population.
"Everyone wants to see the wolf taken off of the endangered species list," said Derek Goldman, a spokesman for the Endangered Species Coalition. "But if that happens before we have balanced, pragmatic management plans in place, we are going to have to go through all of this again and again."
The region's wolf population has grown 24 percent a year despite a death rate of about 20 percent each year from legal killings by government wildlife agents and ranchers protecting livestock, and illegal killings by poachers, federal officials said.
Ed Bangs, wolf coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the federal and state management plans have safeguards for maintaining a healthy wolf population
"All these claims that the states are going to shoot wolves down to just a handful, it's just not true. It's the proverbial crying wolf," he said.
Genetic health
Studies show the region's wolf population is genetically healthy, even though individual wolves rarely move back and forth between the Yellowstone area and the rest of the region, Bangs said.
Bangs, who has spent the past two decades navigating the biology and political controversies of wolf management, said he was relieved that wolves were being delisted.
"Wolves are kind of boring," said Bangs, a wildlife biologist who is more fascinated by wolverines than wolves. "Wolves are just another animal to me. What really fascinates me about wolves is people, their attitudes and values and the nuttiness of how they react."
Federal officials praised their state counterparts, sportsmen, nonprofit groups, landowners and others for cooperating to promote wildland conservation and elk and deer populations so wolves can return to the landscape.
Montana has at least 422 wolves, including 39 breeding pairs, living in 73 packs.
The state's wolf population has increased about 25 percent annually in recent years, including a 34 percent increase in the past year.
Rod Hudson, a Bitterroot Valley cattle rancher, praised the decision to remove wolves from federal protection.
"That's going to help us a whole bunch," said Hudson, who wants Montana to reduce its wolf population to 100 animals, the federal required minimum. "There's too many. They multiply so fast the population is going to explode and it's going to be horrible problem."
Carolyn Sime, FWP's wolf management coordinator, said the delisting decision was momentous for Montana.
"It's hugely symbolic of how the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work and a huge success for folks in Montana who have been living with wolves for 20 years," Sime said.
The decision will have little effect on how wolves are managed in the state beyond a wolf hunting season, because Montana has been responsible for managing its wolf population since 2004, Sime said.
She said Montana's wolf management plan combines "public concerns and the biological reality" of living with wolves.
"Montanans understand that wolves are here to stay," Sime said. "You don't have to like wolves or hate them to understand that."
In a petition filed Wednesday, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council said new wolf populations should be established in other regions, including portions of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southwest and Northwest. Federal officials said they had no immediate plans to reintroduce wolves into other regions.
Published on Monday, February 25, 2008. Last modified on 2/25/2008 at 12:35 am
Billingsgazette.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. By submitting a comment, you are agreeing to the terms & conditions set out in our comment policy.
If you have any problems with the new Talk Back! system, please email us.
The first lesson Montanan's are gong to get is how few wolves actually get taken by hunting alone, especially with a short season like Montana is proposing. Alberta, where bucket biologist Ed Bangs went to get this EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION of OVER SIZED Canadian Taiga Wolves, allows hunting, trapping, snaring, and uses aerial shooting DURING ALL OPEN SEASONS. They had more than enough surplus wolves to send some down to the Americans who were crazy enough to want them. The only condition Alberta put on the program was THE WOLVES WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO COME BACK TO ALBERTA, no matter what.
Let this be a lesson, before anything else is placed on the ESA & "reintroduced", make all of the environmental groups sign off on a particular number that they simply must ahve to sleep at night. They obviously are out for all of the control they can get, and their word is worth nothing. 300 is now 3000, and that will be 30,000 in a few years when the wolves reach the 3000. Environmentalists cannot be satiated because they have to have more and more control over other folks lives.
Marion is right, there will never be enough wolves until the game populations are to the point that all hunting is ended. That was the ultimate goal all along for the enviro nazi, wolf lover crowd. When ther is no hunting then you won't have any reason to have a gun....think about it.
The wolves are not 'Taiga'. Chuck Feney, what is scientific evidence? Genetics? Taiga is arctic. The wolves from Canada where brought down from Hinton, Alberta, next to Jasper National Park, and that is very, very far from being arctic.
Another thing, wolves were NEVER an endangered species. NEVER. There are too many of them in Alaska to the point that moose are the more endangered species. Shoot, shovel and shut up.
Good Morning John Cramer! Yes John, the "debate" is over (debate being defined as a civil argument with winners and losers based on facts). Sorry, blogging in the Gazette does not meet the facts requirement. Yes, the debate is over and the losers are going to sue to stop the decision-and that is why you enviromental groups have no credibility. Prove me wrong and let the agreed- to process continue. What a bunch of LOSERS!~
It's a "great day" for Big Government, and a "great day" for greenie lawyers. The courts will now be tied up for years, delaying the obvious, while these Canadian killing machines continue to breed. The goal from the beginning was to destroy elk and deer hunting traditions, and it almost succeeded.
We should rid the country of all of them, what we can't eliminate, chase accross the nearest border, then not let them back in. Wolves???? No, I'm not talking about the wolves, I'm talking about the enviro lawyers..
Wolves are wonderful! They should be reintroduced into other areas of their former range. Places like NYC's Central Park, the Washington D.C. Mall, the Golden Gate NRA in San Francisco.
I smell a rat in the works! I think if we can hunt them and reduce their numbers to a bare minimum, we could live with that! Anymore is absolutely intolerable!Their is only a finite amount of land , fish and game out there , and the human population is increasing rapidly. And when I say hunt them, I mean by all means necessary to do the job, like they do in Canada. Not some watered down version that only allows for incidental harvest only, mostly by ranchers.Because each year that passes wolf numbers grow exponentially. However, If they are going to send this to one of their puppet judges, and these bilderberg institutions are allowed to further their agenda ,and over run the majority of people here in the affected states,and take away our states right to manage our wildlife, and waste more of our tax payer dollars, then your asking for trouble. These groups want to spread the wolf to Colorado, California and Oregon next. They have already assaulted Alaskans with mixed results. And begun a propaganda campaign in Colorado around Elk in Rocky Mountain national Park. They are nothing more then anti-hunting groups made to appear as grass roots conservation groups,with the hidden agenda of replacing hunters with wolves. Wolf harvests can't be controlled unlike hunters, and thats not conservation by any means. And over time, this is a back door attack on the second amendment. What this is really about is control! Control of human food and control of people. And if you follow the money back you will see who is really behind this and how this all fits into the bigger agenda. This whole wolf reintroduction,has gone way beyond what the people were originally told in the beginning ,just to get wolf in the door. And now folks, their really is a wolf at your door, but they are the worst kind the scheming double crossing two legged kind!
I guess there is a difference between ideology and facts. It all depends on the judges interpretation of them and the special interest groups. If we are going to restore flora and fauna to their past geographical areas and historical numbers, I think the argument needs to be made across America, not just in the west.
This has been an emotional issue from the get-go, and there's been some empty rhetoric from both sides. But, as usual, the lion's (or should I say wolf's) share of hysterical nonsense is coming from the reactionary anti-wolf camp.
In much of this rhetoric, I sense a distain for the wolf as a symbol of nature -- real, honest, truly wild -- as opposed to "nature" as a beaten down, chained and fettered whore, for sale to the highest bidder or "good" only if she caters to our own profits and percived needs.
My response to this is to say that if you have such a revulsion toward nature, instead of suggesting that wolves be moved to New Jersey, perhaps YOU should move to New Jersey, where you won't have to be bothered by actual nature and real, live wild things. Meanwhile, all emotion (my own included) aside, I think the doomsayers on both sides of this issue might well be proven wrong as the process moves forward. Wolves have not driven any ranchers out of business or ruined hunting (all three states still can't seem to issue cow elk tags quckly enough.. what does that tell you?).. but at the same time, allowing some wolf hunting by the public and letting ranchers open fire on wolves that cross on to their property won't wipe the species out.
western-student:..Taiga (pronounced /ˈtaɪgə/, from Mongolian) is a biome characterized by coniferous forests. If you go to Wikipedia and look up Taiga, you'll see that there is a map of the Taiga. There is no Taiga boreal forest in Montana and it clearly begins south of the the Nordeg, Cadamin, and Hinton areas where the OVER SIZED CANADIAN TAIGA WOLVES came from. You are thinking of Tundra when you refer to the Arctic. Go back to biology class.
Hal, the late hunt at gardiner went from 2300 permits to 100 permits in one year. The wolves had nothing to do with that loss of hunting opportunity? The herd went from 19000 to 6700. No impact? The funding for wolves management should not be done by the fish and game deptartment who would use hunters funds to manage an animal reducing our game populations. Tax the non hunting public and see if there is widespread support for the wolves.
western-student:.. The reason that federal bucket biologist Ed Bangs decided to bring in the Experimental population of OVER SIZED CANADIAN TAIGA WOLVES was that he foolishly thought that they would be able to control the Bison population in Yellowstone. We all know how that worked out. Instead, we ended up with an elk killing machine that should be eradicated entirely and replaced with a smaller sub-species more like the Mexican wolf. Like I've said before, Ed Bangs next taxpayer ripoff will be to bring in Siberian Tigers as Lynx to control Bison and Bunnies.
I don't know if you guys hate wolves or poor Ed Bangs the most. The guy has been potshotted by wolf fearing, habitually lying, Stockgrower lackeys, so many times he is now shooting at himself. One of the biggest often told lies is the claim these are some alien super-wolves. Never can tell if guys like Chuck Feney are so scared they believe these easily refuted misinformation campaigns, or if they just like telling the same lie over and over. Do you accept science when you are sick, Chuck? Do you trust DNA when they use it to convict a criminal, or say you are related Howard Taft? Big differences between Canada and the U.S., Ed. Canada has huge areas with very few humans and excellent wolf habitat, we have comparatively small areas with less humans than other places, all in forested and/or partly forested habitat. Our granddaddies killed off hundreds of thousands of wolves in 60 years, making them almost EXTINCT in this part of their range, using high tech stuff like 30-30 carbines. They also used strycnine spread around which killed vast numbers of eagles and other non-target animals (I am well aware a lot stock producers would like to see eagles extinct as well). I agree with Ed on one thing, there is no point in worrying about these wolves. They will have pretty much disappeared within 5 years, because we are in the middle of a reactionary mindset, and those primordially terrorized prevail. When calmer, braver, minds again prevail, the wolves will be back. It is most likely humans will succeed in killing ourselves off while wolves survive to thrive, without us. For Bangs and his equally politically frightened cohorts, to baselessly assure us the wolves will do fine is a great example of how malignant is fear and ignorance. They are so afraid of the wolf haters (not the wolves) they are running for cover. btw - one of your most stupid but popular lies is to pretend Ed Bangs did this himself, for his own reasons. Bucket Biologist? I'd pay to see Chuck get a wolf in a bucket!
The fairest way of setting the payment is not the tiny 100,000 DOW is offereing, but the judge should require that all expense fo the wolf program not covered by the federal government be split evenly between the environmental groups, or if they win the right to keep raising them, the total cost be split among those that file a lawsuit to keep them protected.
That way at least we don't have to pay to be abused.
Billy, that is ONE herd, that was probably grossly over-populated to begin with. Overall, the elk numbers in all three states are near record numbers, and they continue to churn out cow tags to try to check populations. As a hunter, I have no problem with my money going to help wolves -- or any wild critter. See, as a hunter, I love nature as a complete picture, not only what I'm allowed to shoot... so I'm not going to cry if the wolf restores balance in some areas where shooting (not really hunting )opportunities were probably the result of bloated populations.
Troll, I would love to see the wolverine come back too. Just one more thing to piss off the nature-hating, beer-swilling, ATV-riding, Hostess-cupake gobbling, RV-with-satellite T.V. "camping" rednecks trying to pass themselves off as "outdoorsmen." Hell yeah, bring them super-weasles on!!!
I sometimes wonder what goes on in the brain of a low level wolf lover. Were they traumatized so badly as children, when their mothers took them to see "Walt Disney Bambi", that it colored their whole perspective of the wildlife and the world, that it scared them for life. Do they really believe that all nature lives in harmony, and that all people are ignorant and superstitious when it comes to wolves. Or was it Kevin Costners "Dances with Wolves", that really put the brain washing on them. Or, is it because, they can only use their lower brain functions, and can't think for themselves. I personally think it is forum of obsessive compulsive disorder , brought on by over prescribed psychotropic drugs. Because when you look at the Defenders of Wildlife's web site and their perverted views of wildlife conservation, none of their cleverly designed propaganda jives with what people who live and work here have witnessed. Does anybody believe that their has only been 220 confirmed wolf kills of livestock. What does confirmed kill mean. Does that mean a government official came out and saw the bones before they too disappeared. No I think these wolf lovers are nothing but emotionally unstable people who follow like sheep, while a darker more sinister forces pull their strings. Why mess with a system of managing wildlife that has worked so well for generations to the benefit of both mankind and wildlife, and represents the true meaning of conservation. Everything these anti-groups have done have hurt wildlife and people in the end. We have nothing, or very little to gain, and everything to loose by spreading wolves all over the western United States in the 21st century. If we allow these groups to proceed with their agenda, we will surrender control of big part of our way of life, over to people who don't even live here.
western-student:
You've obviously never been to the Nordeg / Cadamin area. The Moose there are not the smaller Shiras moose, they are the larger Western Canadian moose. The whitetails there are much larger than anywhere else in North America to compensate for the lower temperatures as per Allens Law (larger body mass, smaller ears, noses). The Bighorn Sheep there have the most massive bodies of any on the continent. The wolves from that area are similarly adapted for the boreal forest.
I noticed most of these comments have a "HATE" tone to them. If people were smart they would shut up. Finally were going to get some sort of control on the wolf population. Thats all these comments do is add fuel to the fire. (Including those of Bangs in the article). Some people don't know when there winning!!!! These comments will be used to support a turnover of the Delisting!!!!!
I should give it up, but James B deserves a response, which is - your rant is so illiterate it is hard to follow, but I did my best and notice you offer not a single 'fact', or even an opinion based on more than your anger. Hate to tell you, conservationists are the only reason there is abundant wildlife still. Trigger happy rednecks had a lot to do with past population declines, and a fair ammount to do with why recoveries were so expensive and slow. People like yourself have fought every pro-conservation activity in the last century, then you have the nerve to pretend the plethora of existing wildlife is the result of you! Amazing! Again, I don't care how fast you kill off all these wolves (genetically the same as the ones killed off, Chuck). They'll be back. Not in my life, probably not in JimyB's life, but they'll be back. Remember Chuck, I'll pay good money to see you put a super wolf in a bucket. Mr. Bangs will probably buy a ticket. Any other takers? We should it make it worthwhile. You get the money whether or not you actually get him in the bucket, Chuck, as long as you give it an honest try.
These are indeed “Super-Woofs!” At night when nobody but Ed Bangs is watching, they fly, shoot lasers out of their eyeballs and emit deadly nerve gas from their backsides! Elk fall over dead at the mere sight of them! And you are right, James B…in addition to those powers, the “Super-Woofs” have been implanted by the gubbamint with mind-altering brain waves that control masses of granola-munching “Woof-Luvers” – all part of a vast conspiracy to rid you of your right to eat beef jerky or read Playboy Magazine!
To all of you who are bashing the sportsman and woman you need to stop or put your money where your mouth is. First off if you can say your dollars manage wildlife and enhance there environment I'll let bygones be bygones. It was sportsman's dollars who brought the wildlife back from the brink of some species all but being gone.
Lefty you have got it all wrong about today's sportsman, stockman and the FWP together we not only manage the game we make it better for the game. We will do the same for the wolf through management and the wolf will not be devastated as you implied. The wolf needs managed before other game animals such as moose become endangered. If you think It's a joke contact the governor of Alaska.
So if you people who want to preserve the wolf you had better think of how this reintroduction will get out of control if the wolf is not managed. It has been documented that not just the alpha females are having pups but subordinate females are having pups and this is why they have populated at such a high rate.
Chuck, would love to send you some carrots for your wolf bucket and I think you should take up the offer on cash as I think you could get one. I think carrots is what there supposed to eat???? I only have a bachelors degree so I might need another grant to actually learn what they eat from my teacher who was to stupid to make it in the real world. OOPS, was that too negative? I don't want to see any more tree's cut for cleanex for the criers out there. I guess all these wolf lovers forget who brought back the huge herds of deer, elk, buffalo,antelope, ducks, geese,etc.etc.etc.etc. Maybe someday these bucket biologists will figure out who actually knows how to build and sustain wildlife populations. If the nature nuts want to actually help the project species of the week, start working on population control for PEOPLE.
Hal 9000 I agreed with you the process needs to go on...but where do you get the idea the three states can't hand out cow tags fast enough. Can't speak for Idaho or Montanna but in Wyoming especially around Dubois they are drying up fast. You used to be able to see the elk migrating across horse creek by the hundreds, there are very few now. Come see it for yourself if you don't believe me. Ask the local G&F how many cow tags were issued and why now you cannot hardly get any. None last year...come see for yourself is all I ask.
Got a proposal; Anyone doesn't like wolves enough to kill 'em off again, we got a replacement. Two, actually. The Woolly Mammoth and the Sabre Tooth Tiger. Both native to this enviornment, both extinct via early "Global Warming" and likely man's hunting. Both can be re-created, we have the technology. Really, wolves are wimps. I've seen videos where about a dozen try to take down a full grown bull moose and it just beats the stuffing out of them without losing even a tuft of fur from its shaggy mane. On the other hand, a STT would just leap on it and stick its fangs into its throat and that would be that. They'd be a boon. A few years back I did a night driving job along the highways and as dawn rose I got to see all these deer in farmer's fields eating the budding crops in spring. One of those STTs would just run up to them, chomp them and walk away holding them. I could imagine the farmer going out to see the commotion and seeing the tiger big enough it meets his eyes on all fours. He'll probably think its growling at him, but it'll just be purring like a big kitty that caught a mouse. Then Woolly mammoths, they're fun. We'll get some fallout from the "Burning Man" crowd, to form psuedo "Mammoth Cult" parties in the summer. They likely filled the slot that the Bison used to fill, keeping these parts grasslands. During winter, they pulled up pine trees with their trunks and swept ahead of them. Best part is, they are 'crank' proof. Any wolf killer shoots either with any ordinance they can get without being on a 'wanted poster', it will just make them mad. Both had very good vision and could run on grassland faster than any pickup. So, go and shoot away the wolves, we'll replace them;-)
Hey Ben, yet another dreamer dreaming on. If you could rebirth the Mammoth or Sabertooth tiger you would of already done it. Not for the species but for the money.
zblue, overall, state-wide, the elk herds in all three states are still at record numbers, and the states are being liberal with their cow tags as a result. Yes, in specific areas, yours being one, hunting opportunity might have been curbed because of wolf presence. But here’s the thing, elk herds in those areas were grossly bloated and doing a lot of damage to the overall ecosystem. The wolves didn’t “decimate” the herds – they simply brought them back into balance and dispersed them across the landscape, thereby keeping them from doing things like pounding the hell out of streamside willow stands – and allowing riparian areas to recover and thrive again. See, as hunters, we need to ask ourselves, are we more concerned about bloated herds giving us shooting opportunities under conditions that aren’t good for the environment… or the long-term, big picture preservation of the environment as a whole? Do you want "shooting opportunity" in what is essentially a single-species game park... or actual hunting in a healthy, thriving, balanced ecosystem? See, I think it’s both hysterical and tragic when hunters badmouth “enviros.” The modern environmental movement was FOUNDED by hunters. Ever here of Aldo Leopold? He was a great sportsman and a “greenie” before anybody had ever heard the term “greenie.” I think his essay regarding wolves, “Thinking Like a Mountain” should be required reading in every Hunter Education course. Look it up and read it yourself, I think you’ll understand where I’m coming from. For hunters to divorce themselves from environmentalism and big-picture ecology – and instead focus on our own selfish “needs” in particular spots -- is self-defeating, stupid and ultimately a denial of our own roots.
mt2azcowboy – what “facts?” All I’ve been hearing from the reactionary anti-wolf camp since 1995 is hype, exaggeration, dumb-ass conspiracy theories, temper tantrums and an underlying hatred of “nature” that can’t be controlled, manipulated and sold for a profit.
So they want us to be more humane, trapping and poisoning are soooo out of date when you have these really nice hollowpoints available and at 4000 fps the po wuf doesn't know what hit it. Ahhh I just love the smell of burn't 4831 powder in the morning.
One of the major points of propaganda that these dark groups and contrarian's like to throw out at you ,is the Yellowstone Park was over grazed. It probably was in 1988,because of the fires and the devastating drought we had that year. But it sure didn't look like the gobe desert, as some would have you believe. Besides, wouldn't the commonsense thing to do ,would be to increase the harvest of elk outside the park on their winter range by hunters in a controlled manner. That benefits both man and beast, by putting food on the table of local hunters. Why waste millions and millions of dollars to bring in wolves. Why use such draconian measures to control the elk population , and bring in these uncontrolled killing machines and then spread wolves all over the western United States. Why bring so much harm down on livestock producers. How does that fit in to your scheme of things Hal 9000. in fact of matter, you are No HUNTER, because having elk as plentiful as the stars in the sky is a good thing not a bad thing! And no one who loves the outdoors, and hunting elk in the Montana rockies would stand up and say we have to many Elk. No your nothing ,but a troll for the Defenders of Wildlife Hall 9000. And all your so called facts come straight off their web site almost verbatim. We don't have a balanced ecosystem now, just the opposite, and time will tell. The Northern Yellowstone Elk heard is in free fall. And what about central Idaho, I sure feel sorry for those folks, because the wolf lovers and the government ran roughshod over them! I would like to know how many hunters from Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, think that Elk populations are on the rise where they live and hunt, because thats not what I see, and I have hunted these mountains for a long time before they brought wolves in. Lets just wait and see if these law suits stop the delisting process
No the wolf debate is not over. It will continue for years...bla bla..bla untill we start to protect the cocroach or some other insect...we need these little critters to clean up the crumbs...that way people don't have to sweep or vacume ...
True patriot, as a former Christian and sort of an armchair scholar of the various religions, I would have to say your assesment of the doctrine of salvation is pretty accurate. Protestant fundamentalists in particular have recently been pushing the "grace alone" picture of salvation, but apparently ignoring the dynamics of honest repentance of sins and good works that Christ and Paul both made clear to be vital elements of the overall salvation process. With all that in mind, if I were to be Christian again, I think I would join the Eastern Orthodox Church, because I see them recognizing the balance between grace (which is over-emphasized by Protestants) and repentance/good works/religious dogma (over-emphasized by the Catholics)-- for a more complete picture.
Anyway, all this academic musing over theology aside, I think people of faith need to realize secular law -- under which most "gay rights" issues fall -- is an arena seperate from relgion. All Christ had to say on the matter of worldly government is that His followers should render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's -- which I take to mean, be a good, law-abiding citizen, mind your own business and let the world go the way that it will.
James, I agree a firearm is the quickest and most humane way to kill a wild animal. Which is one reason I'll never bow hunt. If I want to go "primitive," I'll use my traditonal Hawken black powder rifle, which doesn't have much more range than many of these modern bows, but still kills the animal a hell of a lot more quickly. Okay, I know I've pissed off all the bowhunters, sorry guys, I've got nothing against your sport in the big picture, it's just not something I personally want to do.
Anyway, James, a hollow point probably would not be the best choice if you care at all about keeping the animal's pelt. Wouldn't a full metal jacket bullet be a better choice?
I see that Hal is taking the boilerplate greenie position that local elk herd populations are presently "bloated" and "un-natural." We hunters will look upon the pre-wolf-intro years as the Good Old Days. Right now, wolves have halfway destroyed elk hunting -- not only by reducingnumbers but by over-stressing elk and scattering herds. Mark my words, this is one of the goals of those who pushed elk reintroduction. They have a fantasy image of the "perfect" wilderness, and will go to any lengths to promote that image as reality. Their next goal, probably several generations away, is to reduce human impact on public lands by moving human populations away from them. It's a Brave New World, folks.
Ha, ha, ha.. I pulled a boo-boo.. my post on religious matters was for the thread on the Denny Rehberg flap.. not this one. For the record, I have no idea what theological views wolves might or might not hold or which Church they would join. Sorry for the screw-up.. carry on.
James B, for the record, I agree with Defenders of Wildlife on some things and disagree with them on others. I could just as easily say your views parrot the propoganda of anti-wolf groups like "Friends" of the Yellowstone Elk Herd. I am a HUNTER and have been so since I was old enough to follow my Daddy into the woods and tote a .22. How can you describe a magnificent animal such as the wolf as a "killing machine?" How any hunter could see any wild animal as evil or their enemy is beyond me. And yes, there is such as thing as too many elk. That's a no-brainer. Again, is our focus to be on having as many animals as possible to shoot at -- at the expense of the long-term ecology -- or to have an actual healthy environment? To be a hunter and not a nature lover in the truest sense is self-defeating to the point of being insane.. why can't you see that? Again, I urge you to read the writings of Aldo Leopold and others of his time. They GOT it. As did the old-school outdoorsmen who taught me how to hunt and respect ALL of nature.. including her predators. James, Defenders of Wildlife doesn't want a wolf hunting season AT ALL. I favor a wolf hunting season, have I not made that clear? What I can't agree with is this reactionary hatred of wolves. They have a place in nature. Again, to be a hunter and outdoorsman and not have a love for ALL of nature makes no damn sense at all to me.
James, one more quick question. If wolves have this super-animal ability to wipe out the ranching industry and ruin all hunting... then why has that not happened in Minnesota... where there are far more wolves that have been there a much longer time in a much smaller state with far more people?
River Rat, thanks for proving my point about goofy conspiracy theories. Please prove that there are, state-wide, only "half" the elk tags available that there were in 1995, before the big, bad woofs showed up. The more such stupid claims the anti-wolf reactionaries make, the further they paint themselves into a corner. Furthermore, you're ascribing WAY too much power to enviro groups. Trust me, for every dollar and lawyer the greenie groups have, the cattlemen and farm bureau have 10. And the West being de-poplulated? Ha, don't I wish. I can recall a time when a guy coud drive all the way between Dillon and Butte and see maybe one other car on the freeway. Now? Sheesh, forget it. River Rat, if you want to bemoan the loss of the "good old days" turn your attention to the subdivisions and the developers bulldozer, not "greenies" or wolves.
Hey anybody interested in a slide show about what the wolves are doing in Idaho. Google "save our elk.com" and check it out, but before warned it's very graphic
I can't, for the life of me, figure out how the northern plains could have been the miracle of abundance Lewis and Clark described! They saw wolves everyday. There were hundreds of thousands of them. Those wolves occasionally managed to kill an adult bison, probably, but their mainstay was deer, elk, Big Horns, prairie goats, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, rabbits, coyotes, etc. They did not eat the Native Americans, btw, and the natives respected and did not fear them. This anti-wolf hysteria is perhaps hardwired in some human brains, genetic knowledge retained from ancestors in the steppes and forests of Europe. Chuck, I actually know quite a bit about wildlife, having guided hunters for decades, and having a natural and professional inclination to figure them out. I would have no problem discussing the range and differences in that largest member of the deer family, the moose, with you. You are welcome to your opinion, I do my best to express mine. Robert R, thank you for offering a reasoned argument. You misunderstand my position, but that is probably my fault for poorly expressing myself. Not all 'sportsmen' hate wolves. License $'s have funded our largely successful efforts to bring wildlife back. Those hated 'greenies' deserve some credit because wildlife can't live without habitat, and if we had not stood up for the environment, beginning in the 60's, eventually convincing huge numbers of everyday Americans of the imperative to protect the planet, for animals and humans alike, we could not have this remarkable and diverse world we enjoy. Industry has ignored every opportunity to protect our resources, and has fought every effort to make them be responsible. A lot of everyday folks see environmentalism as 'biting the hand that feeds us', missing the obvious reality the producers would rather make a samller profit than no profit, and come around EVERY TIME, when forced to do so. Again, I do not think it is the time for wolves, too many people believe the myths and fear the wolves. I do not oppose 'management', but in this climate of intolerance, some people, like many posting here will ignore the rules, confident they will suffer no real consequences. Fine. I don't care! Wolves are just another animal, and plenty still exist (including several sub-species, of which the Gray wolf is genetically identical to the timber wolves killed off) north of us. Most ranchers DO NOT intentionally make anything better for anything they do not make a profit on. This is natural enough, but you can't seriously give the Stockgrowers Assc. credit for our abundant wildlife. FW&P is a political organization, but has the contradiction of having scientists and conservationists in the ranks. Under some Administrations the FW&P Committee is dominated by Ag producers; under others it is dominated by more conservation minded individuals. Sportsmen are all over the place politically. JamesB again displays his confusion. The fires of 88 actually created a great deal more feed for elk, and the populations recorded this fact over then next several years. That drought was a mini (about 85 through 88) compared to the severe drought we have experienced since 99. I know you hate college graduates and facts, but they keep close track of precipitation and temperatures. I do not remember wolves being reintroduced as an elk number management tool, even if this myth is convenient for you. Saying we cannot have too many elk is really a stupid argument, btw. In the real world, populations crash when numbers seriously overburden habitat. Management is about balance, not maximum numbers. GrizzlyDog must have graduated in something in the oil or mining field? License sales $'s did fund the programs which brought game animals, and eventually other wildlife, back, but that is not the same as 'sportsmen' doing the trick. As I said, 'sportsmen and women' are as diverse in attitude as anywhere else in American politics, and it is all politics. An aside regarding ballistics - you might develope a good load with some distance and considerable accuracy, using hollowpoints, especially some of the boattails, but wolves are fairly large and these rounds tend to disintegrate on contact, often without lethal affact. They are great for gophers, and such, but a poor choice, in most calibers, for larger animals you hope to retrieve. It will be most effective to hunt wolves from distance, so I would prefer nothing lighter than a .25, say 25.06, with a 100gr Nosler partition loaded to the fastest fps your particular rifle will stabilize. 4831 is a good choice for this load. .270 with 130 gr Nosler would be a better choice for most shooters, as the extra power would make bullet placement not quite as critical. Full metal jackets are not acceptable for hunting, in any caliber, for several reasons - not accurate; inhumane; limited as to weight and application. The average banger will get by with store bought loads for the .30 cals, but my experience is most guys can't fire more than 2 accurate rounds through a mag before they start to flinch, and many squeese their eyes shut and jerk the trigger so hard they jump off the ground, in anticipation of the recoil. Do yourselves a favor and shoot a cartridge you can handle, instead of one you think makes your testes larger. I'm done here, I'll bet this makes us all happy! :0))
Contact Us | Subscribe
Comment Display Options
