LANDER - If Wyoming wolf hunters don't throttle back their fervor, wolf advocates might succeed in convincing a federal judge to issue an injunction against removing the animals from the endangered-species list, say a rancher and an outfitter inside the state's wolf trophy game zone.
An injunction would effectively put wolves back on the endangered-species list and could kick off a long legal struggle.
At least six wolves have been killed in Wyoming since the animals were removed from the endangered-species list, a state Game and Fish Department spokesman said Friday. All six were shot in Sublette County in the state's new predator area for wolves, where it is legal to shoot the canines on sight. Four of the animals were killed the day they were delisted, and two in the ensuing week.
But those who support Wyoming's wolf management plan say the public needs to understand that most of the wolves outside the trophy game zone have been killed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on a routine basis in recent years. And the wolves in the new predator zone - currently about 30 animals - will chronically kill livestock and are not essential to the survival of the species, they say.
Budd Betts, a dude rancher and outfitter in the Dubois area, said he fully understands the anger many Wyomingites harbor toward wolves, and the federal decision to reintroduce them to the state. But he believes hunters should go about this first month with "a high degree of caution and care," so the animals stay delisted.
"There are a bunch of us outside of the Pinedale area, inside the trophy zone, that are pretty concerned about what's going on in the predator area near Pinedale," Betts said. "Not that we don't understand the anger about the wolf, but there's a concern that we're completely playing into the hand of the environmentalists that want to sue over the delisting. This is going to provide them with the ammunition that they need."
Betts, who lives in what he called "wolf central," said he was against the decision to reintroduce wolves to the region in the mid-1990s - calling it one of the most "unwarranted and misguided" wildlife efforts ever undertaken by his country. But now that the animals are here, and they're not going anywhere, people have to learn to live with them.
"I'm not a pro-wolf person, but we lost," Betts said. "Obviously, we want to go after problem wolves, but to actually hunt them - it's just going to be self-defeating and it may get the wolf relisted. We need to back off and let ourselves win in court."
Jon Robinett, a neighbor and a cattle rancher, said he agrees with Betts. Although he was against the reintroduction of wolves, and has lost a great deal of livestock to the canines over the years, he has also worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more than a decade to help maintain a healthy wolf population - and to get them removed from the endangered-species list.
Robinett said he's concerned that there is a growing perception regionally and nationally that Wyomingites started slaughtering wolves the minute the animals lost their federal protection.
"That's basically what it looks like," Robinett said. "We need to back off, use some common sense here. This could bite us in the butt."
'Not essential'
Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, has a different take on the matter.
"I guess I don't share that view," Wharff said. "The Fish and Wildlife Service, by allowing Wyoming its wolf management plan, has basically said that the wolves outside the trophy zone are not an essential population for the survivability of the species."
Although there might be some public discontent, Wharff said, people must also come to understand that most of the wolves outside the new trophy zone were annually killed through federal management when they were still protected as an endangered species.
Mike Jimenez, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf recovery coordinator for Wyoming, made the same point in an interview with the Star-Tribune recently. He said the wolf population in the predator area is largely "symbolic," made up of non-established packs that - because of chronic livestock conflicts - get killed and replaced by newly dispersing wolves almost annually.
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service killed a lot more wolves than we've killed so far in Wyoming, but I guess the public is going to be more aware of the wolves that are being killed under Wyoming's plan," Wharff said. "But when a judge looks at it, I don't think it's going to matter, legally."
Wyoming's obligation is to maintain 15 breeding pairs of wolves, and it can do that without any wolves outside the trophy game zone, he said.
Wharff said there has been no concerted effort by his organization or any of its chapters, as far as he knows, to go out and kill wolves.
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said he can understand the concerns about public perception, but he agrees with Wharff that the public needs to understand that wolves outside the trophy game zone are chronic livestock predators and they are routinely removed by authorities.
"While I don't want to be insensitive to how the public perceives these things, I think it's also important that the public understands how this system works," Magagna said. "This has not been indicative of some massive campaign to extirpate wolves - that number of wolves could well have been killed by (USDA) Wildlife Services, and it never would have attracted anyone's attention."
Injunction fodder?
But some believe that a Wyoming wolf slaughter is indeed in the offing, and the public perception of such, if there is one, is justified.
Lisa Upson, wildlife advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said her organization is "extremely concerned" about the pace of the killing in the predator area.
The NRDC is one of a coalition of conservation groups that has filed a notice of intent to sue over the federal decision to delist wolves, and which might seek an injunction against the decision when it is able to file suit at the end of this month.
"We're watching it very closely. On one level we're not surprised six wolves were killed in the first six days, because the Wyoming plan fails to protect restored wolves," Upson said. "This is not a sustainable rate of killing. This is something we're looking at very closely and evaluating every day at this point. It certainly raises the potential grounds for seeking an injunction."
Published on Sunday, April 06, 2008. Last modified on 4/6/2008 at 1:51 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.
why not sell tags to hunt them just like deer. then the no. could be controled and the fee could go towards livestock kills, or what ever else is needed. and most people that hunt should be willing to pay, say $10-$15. for a tag. and the tag would be good till filled or one yr. sounds fesible to me.
This wolf issue continues to illustrate the lack of good sense exibited by extremists on both sides of this issue.
If you do not support any wolves at all you may as well accept the fact that management of wolf populations is the best you can hope for. If these populations are properly managed then impacts on game and livestock will probably be minimal. Inflamatory comments supporting wolf extermination will not help Wyoming's case that it can properly manage wolves. Do you really want the wolf to be listed again?
In addition, any responsible sportsman cringes when he hears supposed hunters making ignorant redneck comments which do nothing except enforce negative public perceptions of hunters as a group. We should be the conservation proponents in this argument as has been our traditional role. Your comments make it impossible to take that high ground.
And you wolf proponents, what in the world are you thinking?
Are you really the wildlife proponents you think you are? If you were you would not be trying to hurt Wyoming's tourism industry which is largely based on hunting and other wildlife based recreation. If wildlife loses its economic value then it will lose period, big time. Wildlife must pay its own way to survive against opposing economic forces such as development and agriculture. That has been proven time and time again. You need to start taking your cues from Aldo Leopold rather than Animal Planet.
Extremeists on both side only assure that wildlife will lose in the end
Eloquently put Wyoelkhunter. When I read the first article when just three wolves had been killed that people were going to take the killings the wrong way. Wyoming's reasoning looks good on paper, when extreme pro-wolf people just look at the immediate killing after desisting it looks truly barbaric! These people would have less of a leg to stand on if Wyoming would have taken a couple extra days to print out a batch of tags, and really it's still not to late to save face and do so. For the record... I myself have no interest in harvesting a wolf, but I have friends and family that do. I hope that they are allowed the chance to do so.
I think so far two things have been made pretty clear, the wolves are habituated to humans and make little attempt to avoid them, that is a very dangerous situation long term. Secondly the speed with which those wolves were killed indicates a much larger population that has been "estimated".
Third, the wolf lovers are becoming hysterical and trying to find the names of those who kill wolves so they can contact them and let them know how wrong they are. This could turn into a dangerous situation.
The ranchers have to be allowed the ability to protect their animals adn I'd hate to see the hunters give enviros an excuse to prevent that.
The difference is that Wildlife Services targeted wolves that were a problem. That is, wolves that were known to have attacked livestock. These hunter are simply shooting any wolf that they can find, whether they have ever attacked livestock or not. Wolf 253m is a perfect example. Lived out 8 years on three legs and managed to stay out of trouble. Traveled to Utah through heavy cattle country and stayed out of trouble. Yet he was the first wolf shot when they came off of the list. If we are targeting good wolves, what chance does the wolf population have? This is like me shooting my neighbor's dog just because another dog killed my cat five years ago. I am fairly confident that this "management" plan will not stand up in court.
The predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth by the wolf lovers has begun. Ever wonder where these people get their money and lawyers for their inane lawsuits? Now there is an implied threat of lawsuits because a few problem wolves were shot right away. News flash! These groups have nothing better to do and will file their lawsuits regardless. The few wolves shot in the predator area will be about the same as what the USFWS would normally kill anyway, so this way we can save some taxpayer money and be more proactive with the problem wolves. By the way, I think it would be a great idea for Wyoming to charge an additional one percent sales tax on all YNP sales to compensate ranchers and pay for litigation.
This article is bull. The Yellowstone Park service and Fish + Wildlife personnel all know the wolves number are out of control, in and out of the park. They were released in Yellowstone Park to control the number of buffalo in the park. We are talking about wolves outside park boundaries. As far as I'm concerned every wolf that is outside the park is trespassing and anyone involved in the release of these wolves should be fined with jail sentence, the same that happened to the folks that got caught killing the wolf at the beginning of this experiment gone wrong. Everyone has seemed to forgotten when and where these wolves were released. If Ed Bangs and other fellow dolts can't control where these wolves have migrated to then they should be held liable all the way to the grand jury.
All good comments, but why have a requirement to report a wolf kill in a predator area where shoot on site is legal and by US Fish and Wildlife's own admission wolves are not needed to sustain a viable pair population? If there are no tags required then there should be no requirement to report and especially have to give your name, which I am sure will be argued, becomes public information at that point,which will only encourage more unreported taking of wolves! As far as hurting Wyoming tourism, the price of gas has that problem in hand already.
Way to go Wyo, you are proving to the world that the only thing important to you is yourselves and your money. To he** with the earth and everything on it as long as you get yours!
Please do not feel singled out though, Montana has its own similar situation with our slaughter of buffalo that dare to migrate to where the MSGA cows own the earth and more specifically the grass growing on it.
Having a healthy wolf population is not the problem we have gone from 31 to nearly 2000 in just over ten years. That demonstrates prolific and exponential growth, not a breeding problem. Our problem will be keeping these vermin in check and from wiping out historic game populations. We have by law the right to shoot these vermin on sight. If the environazis that forced them on us had these eradicators in their backyards killing livestock, every game animal, and every pet that crossed their paths, I would be willing to bet the rhetoric would be different. All of this matters very little, in the short or long run these zealots will force the issue through a liberal court somewhere no matter what actually happens. Of course in the mean time they will continue their do as I command but not in my backyard BS. I say let’s find a way to send them the entire bill for management of the animal they so love and transplant a few to their neck of the woods for some one on one wolf watching while poor Fido or their favorite tabby cat is packed off for supper along with any other living animal that be killed.
They obviously are not making a dent in the wolves in that area, a rancher in the same area has lost several calves since the wolves were shot. Unfortunately as I understand it, he is out of the compensation area, so the wolves just took several thousand out of the family checking account to please the wolf huggers.
Only shoot the wolves twice. That leaves more ammo to shoot other wolves with. Wolf hunting by the numbers. 1.) Shoot 2.) Shovel 3.) Shut Up 4.) Repeat steps 1-3
Contact Us | Subscribe
Comment Display Options
