• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Not protect wolves? We should be so lucky.

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Location
northwestern South Dakota
U.S. wants to end gray wolf protection
By John Flesher
Associated Press
Published March 17, 2006


TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- Gray wolves have recovered fully from the brink of extinction in the western Great Lakes region and no longer need federal protection there, the Bush administration said Thursday.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton said her department would propose removing the wolf from the endangered species list in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, where about 3,800 live.

The proposal also covers parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, which aren't thought to have wolves now. Individual animals might stray that far, although they are unlikely to form packs, officials said.

Under the federal proposal, state and tribal governments would take responsibility for ensuring that wolf populations remain healthy. Minnesota and Wisconsin have developed management plans reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Michigan is updating its plan, first developed in 1997.

"Our proposal to delist the gray wolf indicates our confidence that those who will assume management of the species will safeguard its long-term survival," Norton said.

The agency will conduct public hearings before making a final decision.

The proposal drew support from several environmentalist groups, which said it illustrated the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

"The wolf's return in the Great Lakes region is one of the most remarkable turnarounds in the annals of wildlife conservation," said Peggy Struhsacker, wolf recovery manager for the National Wildlife Federation.

Fewer than 1,000 gray wolves remained in the contiguous United States when the species was listed as endangered in 1974. The latest population estimates were 3,020 in Minnesota, 425 to 455 in Wisconsin and 405 in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603170143mar17,1,4411555.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
 
Hi, I'm new here. This will be my first post, but I have been checking the discussions once in a while since sometime in December. This wolf situation is getting pretty close to home. We live in eastern Montana between the Yellowstone and the Missouri River. It is very open country with hardly a tree to speak of. In late December some neigbors of my father-in-law(who lives about 50 miles north) lost several sheep and several more chewed up. Having never had wolves in the area it was dismissed as domestic dogs. About two weeks later my Aunt and Uncle who live about 20 miles west of there, very near the CMR(Charlie Russel wildlife refuge)around Fort Peck lake lost 3 dead, 9 chewed some of which later died. An extra large track was seen in the mud there. Two days either before or after, their neighbor found 15-20 dead and another 40 some chewed up. Wildlife services or Animal Damage Control then decided it was probably a wolf. The Mccone county predator control board pilot saw the critter a few days later while flying and tried to get permission to kill it. After waiting four hours for the authorites to give him permission, which they finally did, it was getting dark and he was low on fuel. Anyway it got away. There has since been several sightings, one rancher got a shot but missed, and it was back to my relatives' place for an early morning kill of 2 and chewing 8 more.

There was a meeting sponsored by Conrad Burns(MT senator) in Circle last week. MT Fish and Game was there telling us what we can and can't do. It was kind of a joke. South of the Missouri and on to the west a ways we can kill a wolf that is harassing or killing our livestock or pets. They wanted be sure and get it across to us that we were lucky we could do that. The way I understand it, north of the river, only the officials can kill one there, if you have proof of a kill. They also wanted us to know that it was Wyoming's fault that the wolf was not off of the Endangered Species list here. Montana and Idaho submitted plans to the Feds that they would manage the wolf after delisting like other game animals(Mt. Lion, Black Bear, Deer, Elk, etc.) which were approved. I'm not sure but I think Wyoming wants to treat it as a predator(coyote, fox, etc), which would mean it could be hunted anytime. So as I see it we would be no better off if it is Delisted, maybe north of the river would be better off. The Fish and Game is just gonna make some money off of it when they get full management control. They will get to sell tags or permits and won't have to be responsible for the damage that they will cause. We need to get behind Wyoming and hope they get there laws passed so we may have a chance of changing ours. If I'm wrong on Wyoming's wishes i hope someone will correct me. I would like to know the truth. Not to stir up the big discussion again but, our Fish and Game, is not well liked around here. It seems like they are just out for the almighty dollar and as much control as they can get away with.

It also seems very strange that they call these wolves "Endangered" when they can go back to Canada and get some more if we run short here. :) Most everyone believes that they are fine in the Park(Yellowstone) but if they are out of bounds they should be fair game.

Anyway there have been so many sightings and stories it's hard to know what to believe. But in all likelyhood there is more than one wolf here. There is atleast an 80 to 100 mile spread in the more believable sightings and about 50 miles between the farthest kills.

Does anyone know what the laws after delisting will be in the Great Lakes area? I'm curious if it is the same as Montana's sell out plan.

I was intrigued by the other wolf discussion, the frozen dog for bait sounded very interesting. What are the wolf laws like in Canada?
 
You are right about Wyoming classifying wolves as predators in part of the state. In Wyoming, according to the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan, wolves will have dual status. They are classified as a trophy game animals in National Parks and adjacent wilderness areas, and as predatory animals in the rest of the state.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service asked 12 of the top recognized wolf researchers, wolf management and livestock depredation experts in North America to independently review and evaluate each of these state wolf management plans. Eleven of the 12 stated the plan was sufficient to maintain a stable wolf population, yet the FWS would not delist them. Wyoming has had to take them to court.

Thank you so much for your comment on "getting behind Wyoming" on our wolf plan. The feds have done everything they can to give us a black eye and make us look bad, but so far we are holding tight. I hope the governor continues to do so. Our lawsuit has gone to court, and it doesn't look good. The liberal judges are questioning our law suit and that we should even be in court, because the US Fish & Wildlife Service "could change their mind" and accept our plan. Do you really think that's going to happen? No. And neither do they. It is a stall tactic. Meanwhile the wolves continue to multiply. We have a pair right below our house near our calving pasture.
 
That is the problem in a nutshell, if Wyoming would have takin a little different approach than labeling them as fair game 24/7 365 a year they would be off the list by now. Problem being after all the investment in the wolf program and outside pressures their is no way the USFWS could allow them to classify them in that way. Politics play a roll like it or not!

If they would have classified them as a game species or limited quota and then left any wolf causing livestock or human conflicts issues to be taken at anytime you would have better outcomes in MT as well. It would be a hard sell to many that you take an endangered species and repopulate them and then less than 15 years later take them to nusiance levels. Oh boy heads would roll somewhere on that one!
 
Did you read and understand that 11/12 USFWS wolf biologists, etc. said Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan would support the 'required' wolf population in Wyoming???

You, like so many other liberal minded individuals, hide behind science when it suits you, but when science doesn't get you what you want, you talk politics. Please remember the listing and delisting of species on the ESA is to be based on SCIENCE not POLITICS.

Are you sure you are on the right forum? This site is for ranchers.
 
Thanks CattleQueen for your information. Wyoming's plan makes perfect sense. Keep the wolves in the Parks and Wilderness areas where they belong. We have no elk here that need thinning out. I saw a program on National Geographic channel on the wolves in Yellowstone. It said as the wolf population grows and since wolves don't know about the boundaries of the Park that there would be controversies with ranchers. Well NO kidding. The deer around here, antelope too, they know where it's safe during hunting season. I would assume wolves would be that smart, to stay where they aren't being shot at. The whole idea of balancing nature, needing wolves to keep the elk numbers in check, is assinine. Haven't humans always been a part of nature, use them to keep the correct numbers, it would be a lot more precise, it could be done on a year to year need. In the local paper there was a story about Idaho wanting to "eliminate" 43 of the estimated 58 wolves in the Lolo pack roaming the Clearwater River Basin to help rebuild the elk herd in a popular hunting area. I guess they have TOO many wolves.

The whole wolf recovery program is such a waste. In an earlier topic here I read that they cost the US $250,000 each, seems much more cost effective to sell more hunting licenses and generate some income rather than spend the money foolishly. Not that the Fish and Game needs anymore money, but they could contribute it to the state which has budget problems anyway.

I know it's too late for that argument now that they are here, now we just have to deal with them. I could understand maybe not a kill on sight 24/7/365 by just anyone, but anyone should be able to kill one on his/her own property whenever the opportunity arrises. If you have livestock they are a threat, whether you see them in the act or not. The one rancher lost 60 sheep in one night. I say lost, granted not all dead, but could just as well be. They claim that is just one wolf, imagine a pack of 58. Anyone that has seen what even a coyote can do to a lamb or calf, killing or maiming just for the heck of it, it makes you sick. At any rate, the USF&W needs to be financially responsible for their wolves. If you have a dog get into someones livestock and do damage you are responsible. Same with bulls, you have one get into someones cows at the wrong time of year and cause problems, you are responsible. The USF&W can't deny ownership, they bought them. Defenders of Wildlife used to pay for depradations, but I understand they have run out of money, big surprise.

They had to close down Central park in New York yesterday because of a coyote, imagine what would happen if they saw a wolf there :shock:

Well that's enough of my ranting for now.
Is there anything we can do to help Wyoming get this common sense approach passed? Or do we just have to wait for the courts?
 
Cattle queen I'm not a liberial and I also know some on this subject, the wyoming plan would have went through with a different classification, tell me how you can have an open season on wolves any time any place, outside of national parks when they are a dispersal animal as the packs grow and call that a "wolf managment plan"? The wolves are leaving the parks in droves to find food and also to start new family units.

The politics come from the Feds and your very naive to think they don't play a big role in decisions like this, as I stated like it or not, which I don't it is all apart of it. These things become "pet" projects and those with the power play a big roll. I will say again, I have zero problem controlling wolves, if they would have offered even the slightest bit of protection : ie season or quota or classified them differently then you would have had the delisting, it is just not the people in Western states, they also keep in mind the tree huggars and bunny lovers of the rest of the US, as by going ahead with that program as laid out would have made for certain a court battle. I hide from nothing just state the facts!
 
Wolves are offered protection under Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan. Again, they are listed as trophy game animals in wilderness areas - that is protection. The FWS own wolf experts and scientists said Wyoming's plan would work to support the population. I'm not as naive as you think. I know politics play a part - but according to the ESA, these decisions are to be based on science Not politics. This is part of why the ESA is broken.

I just got this on email today. I believe these 2 articles are in the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Please take a few minutes to read them and comment by Monday, April 10, 2006.
-----------

The US Fish & Wildlife Service is proposing to delist the northern gray wolf in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and parts of Utah, Oregon & Washington. YOU have until Monday, April 10, to submit your comments. Harriet Hageman, attorney for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, told me last week it is VERY important that we comment, because the FWS receives thousands of comments from environmental groups, and they can get into legal situations if they don't follow the majority of the comments. Give the FWS a more balance view. Please take a few moments to read the attached short article and to comment. Please forward this to the people on your email list. Thank you.

Echo Renner
Meeteetse, WY

-------------
Article:
Wolf Delisting Comment Period Nearly Over

By Echo Renner

The US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) proposes to establish a distinct population segment of the gray wolf in all of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, the eastern one third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah. They also propose this distinct population to be removed from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). "The threats to the wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) distinct population segment have been reduced or eliminated as evidenced by the population exceeding the numerical, distributional and temporal recovery goals each year since 2002," according to the Federal Register.

It goes on to say, "The states of Montana and Idaho have adopted state laws and state wolf management plans that would conserve a recovered wolf population within their boundaries into the foreseeable future. However, we have determined that Wyoming State Law do not provide the necessary regulatory mechanism to assure that Wyoming's share of the recovered wolf population will be conserved if the ESA's protection were removed."

Wyoming's Statutes and Wolf Management Plan classify the gray wolf as a 'trophy game animal' inside the National Parks and the adjacent wilderness areas, and as a 'predator animal' elsewhere in the state. The FWS rejected Wyoming's plan in January 2004, insisting that Wyoming give up its dual classification and protect the gray wolf as a 'trophy game animal' throughout the state. Wyoming continues to receive pressure to forfeit the 'predator animal' status. See attached article "Holding Strong…"

The FWS is accepting comments only through the close of business on Monday, April 10. Comments can be emailed to [email protected] and should include "RIN No. 1018-AU53" in the message subject line, or mailed to US Fish & Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601. Mailed comments must be postmarked by April 10. For more information, contact Ed Bangs, FWS Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator at (406) 449-5225 ext. 204.

-----------------------------

Holding Strong Against Broken Promises In Wolf Delisting

By Echo Renner

"Wolves are having a more severe impact on our wildlife than the federal government admitted to when they were introduced into the Yellowstone National Park a decade ago," said Harriet Hageman, attorney for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition. "They have multiplied faster, have spread further, and have impacted our livestock industry in ways that the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and wolf advocates intentionally downplayed," she added. "The FWS made two important promises to the citizens of Wyoming – that the wolves would be limited numerically to about 100 per state for Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, or 300 total; and that they would be limited geographically to the national parks and contiguous wilderness areas," explained Hageman. "In identifying and describing the anticipated wolf impacts, the FWS made it clear that wolves were "undesirable" in the vast majority of the state and that they would implement an effective management and control program to ensure that we didn't suffer the consequences of their "experiment." "Now, there are over 1,000 wolves in the three states, and the FWS refuses to limit their territory."

Hageman, attorney with Hageman & Brighton, P.C. in Cheyenne, and her law partner Kara Brighton, spoke at the Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SWF) state convention in Cody on March 31.

"The FWS Wolf Recovery Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Final Rule state that the first time a wolf kills livestock, the wolf will be moved. The second time livestock is killed, the wolf/wolves will be lethally removed, but this is not happening." Hageman cited a situation in the summer of 2005 near Farson, where 30 sheep were killed at one time by wolves. Despite the fact that the sheep were all killed in the same area on the same night, wildlife officials would confirm only one as a wolf kill, they identified 14 others as "probably" killed by wolves, but had "no idea what happened to the other 15." Hageman said, "By reaching what was an utterly ridiculous conclusion, they were able to avoid carrying out their responsibilities, they were able to distort the true impact of wolves, and they were able to mislead the public about what the wolves are doing. They were also able to prevent that livestock producer from being compensated for his losses." The FWS is also reluctant to move wolves, "because there is nowhere to put them." They have saturated the area.

The FWS has approved Idaho and Montana's wolf management plans. In February, the Idaho Department of Fish & Game proposed the removal of 43 wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone, and keeping the population low for the next five years to allow the decimated elk population to recover. The green Defenders of Wildlife bombarded the Game & Fish Department with over 42,000 form comments arguing against the proposal to prevent the FWS from approving the State's plan. "That is what they get with their approved management plans. They have sold their souls to the devil," said Hageman. "They don't allow controlled hunts or aerial hunting of wolves in Idaho and Montana. It will be a minimum of five years before they allow any hunting in those states, and that is with an approved plan."

The gray wolf is the 11th most expensive species the FWS has dealt with in terms of the Endangered Species Act. "This wolf experiment has cost too much in terms of money and wildlife," said Hageman. "Margot Zalen, one of the primary federal attorneys behind the introduction of the wolves, told me the government wants to turn wolf management over to the states, because they can't afford them anymore."

Wyoming's Statutes and Wolf Management Plan classify the gray wolf as a 'trophy game animal' inside the National Parks and the adjacent wilderness areas, and as a 'predator animal' elsewhere in the state. The FWS rejected Wyoming's plan in January 2004, insisting that Wyoming give up its dual classification and protect the gray wolf as a 'trophy game animal' throughout the state. That includes areas the FWS itself identified as being "undesirable" for wolf presence because of conflicts with humans, wildlife and livestock. The State of Wyoming, Park County and the Wyoming Wolf Coalition filed suit to direct the FWS to accept the plan and proceed with delisting. They believe the FWS rejected the plan based on public relations concerns rather than the 'best science available,' which is required by the Endangered Species Act.

"The FWS wants Wyoming to take over the wolves," said Hageman. "What we get is the financial and environmental responsibility, but no authority to manage them. If the federal government can't afford to manage them, how can Wyoming possibly afford it?" she questioned. "Wyoming's legislature will be receiving a lot of pressure to get rid of the 'predator status' in our plan," said Hageman. "We need to push back. Our legislature has put us in a perfect position. Watch and see if the FWS keeps their promises to Idaho and Montana. If not, we need to tell the FWS we're not going to take over responsibility for the problems they have created."

The wolf population in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana is over 1,000 wolves. One wolf kills about two prey animals per month, just for food. "That's 24,000 prey animals killed each year just for food," commented Hageman. "The prey base in Yellowstone National Park is severely declining. I think the FWS is concerned. They don't want to be in charge of wolf management when people start figuring out there's no wildlife left. They want to turn wolf management over to the states, so the states are responsible, that's why they're pushing Wyoming." She continued, "The FWS wants Wyoming to drop it's 'predator animal' status. I say, when they give real on-the-ground authority to Idaho and Montana to manage wolves the way they need to be managed, then we can consider dropping our predator status. The federal government has to be held accountable."
 
I should also mention that the FWS themselves said the rest of Wyoming (outside the national parks and wilderness areas) is "undesirable" for wolves.
It's time we hold them accountable! :twisted:
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Go for it, shoot them all, we have more we can sell you. You might not get them as cheap the next time. :wink:

LOL I think we gave them the damn wolves?
 
cattle queen rmember what I told you and you bashed me on it?
This is why your plan didn't go through

The FWS rejected Wyoming's plan in January 2004, insisting that Wyoming give up its dual classification and protect the gray wolf as a 'trophy game animal' throughout the state. Wyoming continues to receive pressure to forfeit the 'predator animal' status.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top