Wolf numbers continue to increase (Northern Rockies)

[Ediacara]

Source: Billings Gazette

Reports of livestock deaths across region due to predators on the rise

By MIKE STARK
Of The Gazette Staff
There are now at least 1,300 wolves prowling Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, far more than anyone imagined when the species was reintroduced in the Northern Rockies 12 years ago.

The wolf population has, on average, grown by about 26 percent a year for the past decade. The latest estimates, which summarize counts completed at the end of 2006, show they aren't slowing down.

"I keep thinking we're at the top end of the bubble," said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "I can't see that there's room for any more, but we'll see."

As the wolf population has grown, so have the reports of cattle, sheep and other livestock being killed. In response, wildlife officials last year killed a record number of wolves after livestock attacks.

Read more: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/03/20/news/state/30-wolf_x.txt

[aquart]

1. I swear I thought you were talking about Blitzer's ratings.

[Ediacara]

2. Situation. Situation? Situation.... Situation! Situation. Situation.....

Didn't he used to be a reporter?

[natrat]

3. at this point anything said by a bush government employee should be taken as a lie

[Ediacara]

4. So career scientists are now certifiable liars?

[depakid]

5. Not necessarily- but so called "journalists" are

Notice how the article "neglected" to mention that ranchers receive compensation for any livestock losses attributed to wolves.

[Ediacara]

6. I wasn't talking about the journalists, I was talking about

"at this point anything said by a bush government employee should be taken as a lie" and unless the Billings Gazette is on Bush's payroll, this is a reference to career scientists...

[depakid]

8. Actually, if you look at the cases over the past 6 years

You'll see multiple instances where career scientists at Fish & Game have either been censored, threatened- or have released false or misleading information.

The poster may be over generalizing, yet on the other hand- it's also naive to take anything coming from the administrative agencies at face value anymore- without independent analysis and verification.

See this from PEER: http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=361

And also this from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Systematic Interference with Science at Interior Department Exposed
Emails and Edited Documents Show Evidence of Manipulation

Recently obtained documents demonstrate that Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald and other high-ranking political appointees within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at the Department of the Interior have systematically distorted, manipulated, and misused the scientific process prescribed by the Endangered Species Act.

In several notable cases, this interference resulted in changing a "positive" finding--in favor of protecting species under the Endangered Species Act--to a "negative" finding. In making these changes, MacDonald, whose training is in engineering, overrode the recommendations of the agency’s own biologists.

These examples of the manipulation and distortion of scientific information at the Interior Department are the tip of the iceberg. A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) survey of scientists at the FWS, released in February 2005, demonstrated pervasive political interference in science at the agency. Unfortunately, the significant editing of scientific documents described below shows that the misuse of science at the FWS has continued.

MUCH MORE:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/endangered-species-act-interference.html

[depakid]

11. Quick addendum- Proposed Changes for Gray Wolf Protections

On February 8, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a proposal to remove the northern Rockies wolf population from the Endangered Species list. Upon removal of Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections, the state agencies will be tasked with ensuring the long-term viability of this species.

Defenders is not supporting the proposal to remove federal protections for the northern Rockies wolf population. While we support the goal of returning management to state agencies, the current proposal will turn wolf management responsibilities over to some states that are more committed to wolf eradication than recovery.

Montana produced a sound wolf management plan, but the states of Wyoming and Idaho continue to support plans that will not ensure the long-term survival of the species. Thus, Defenders is fighting the implementation of this proposal.

As the first course of action, a coalition of 28 conservation groups, including Defenders, requested more opportunities for public comment on the proposed removal of the northern Rockies gray wolf from the federal endangered species list.

The groups asked for additional hearings in Portland, Seattle and Denver and also recommended extending the public comment period from 60 days to 90 days to allow all stakeholders to be heard. Read the press release about the coalition’s request.

What You Can Do

Submit Written Comments

The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently accepting comments on their plan until 5pm May 9, 2007. Use our Delisting Fact Sheet to craft your letter to show your opposition to the proposal to remove federal protections for wolves in the northern Rockies. Comments can be sent:

* Electronically to [e-mail]. Include ‘‘RIN number 1018–AU53’’ in the subject line of the message.

* By mail to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601. Include ‘‘RIN number 1018–AU53’’ in the subject line of the letter.

Attend a hearing and/or open house

Prepare for the hearings and for writing your comment by reading our Delisting Fact Sheet and our Northern Rockies Gray Wolf Backgrounder.

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/wolf/regions/nrockies_delisting_02_2007.html

[Bacchus39]

7. nevertheless, the wolf populations continues to grow

the compensation for ranchers was likely a condition for the reintroduction in the first place.

[doodadem]

10. You say that like it's a bad thing!

Considering the wolf populations were driven right to the edge of extinction, the only way to go is up.

Did you know there used to be wolf populations in nearly every state in this country? They were hunted out, to where now they only subsist in a few western states. But people want to bitch their heads off about the deer population explosion, and how they are becoming more and more urbanized to eat their expensive landscaping around their McMansions.

[Bacchus39]

12. yes, they were nearly exterminated in the lower 48

I believe a remnant population in Michigan has survived since the arrival of Europeans. The deer population explosion may be a result of less people hunting these days, and also actually the amount of good habitat available. Deer love fields and wooded edge habitat. agricultural areas and suburban areas have created abundant deer habitat.

p.s.

I just noticed the title of your message. I don't think the growing wolf population is a bad thing at all. I was in Yellowstone two years ago and watched the wolves frolicking and even saw an attack on an elk. it was incredible and fascinating.

[natrat]

18. who knows but those scientists are not allowed to speak out

so anything you do hear has been approved by the junta therefore obviously a lie

[doodadem]

9. This is a crock of Republican shit

Reports like this are spread by the cattle industry in the western states because they aren't going to be happy until all wolves are wiped from the face of the planet.

If you go to savewolves.org you find:

"Alaska's majestic gray wolves are in grave danger. The state has issued permits to aerial gunners and pilots to chase the wolves, run them to exhaustion and shoot them from the air or to land and shoot them at point-blank range. More than 550 wolves have already been killed in this manner over the last three years!"

I read reports last year of how hunters will bait wolfs right on the edge of their protected habitats, and the second they cross over, they kill them.

and:
"Idaho state officials proposed to slash the price tag for killing a wolf in Idaho to only $9.75.

This comes on the heels of a formally released federal proposal to lift wolf protections in Idaho and Wyoming -- two states that plan to exterminate as many wolves as possible within their borders.

To jumpstart its wolf massacre, Idaho officials are proposing to offer a small price to entice the state’s hunters to participate in their plan to slaughter wolves. If gray wolves lose federal protection in Idaho, the price for a wolf’s life could be just $9.75.

And Idaho’s wolves will find no friend in Governor “Butch” Otter. In fact, Governor Otter is eager to kill these magnificent creatures himself. He recently addressed an anti-wolf rally, saying:

“I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself.”

In neighboring Wyoming, things are just as bad. As many as 2 out of every 3 wolves in the state could be killed, with unlimited killing in some wilderness areas."

And from the National Wildlife Federation:

"Many members of the ranching community, another powerful western interest group that sometimes conflicts with conservationists, feel that wolves threaten their livelihood. A century ago, livestock predation was a serious concern. Today, however, wolves account for a small fraction of livestock deaths. Of the 104 million head of cattle raised in 2005, wolves killed 4,400, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. By contrast, digestive problems caused 648,000 deaths and domestic dogs 22,000. Moreover, ranchers who lose livestock to wolves are compensated with state and private funds."

Go to http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=113&articleID=1439

for the entire article on debunking wolf misinformation.

The cattle industry is very powerful, they are HUGE Republican contributors, and they attack any other creature they see as infringing on "their turf"--which is yours and my public lands that they lease for a mere pittance. They have also waged a huge campaign to get rid of all wild mustangs on these lands, claiming they eat all of "their" grass.

The Bush administration has done nothing but help these idiots. It takes people like us to write your Congressmen, to sign the petitions, to make the donations, and say, we care about the wolves, the wild mustangs, the polar bears. You have to take action for what you believe in, and want to save.

[Kali]

13. I'm not going to debate ranching issues on this (because I tend to disagree

with most of what the organizations say about these types of issues) but I will say this about "compensation" for predator kills. It's not that easy to prove or collect. So while the fact of compensation gets tossed around like it is some kind of cure-all, it really isn't. And even if one is compensated for a kill, you are not compensated for the lost income if it was breeding stock or the genetics you lose etc etc. It is as if you took that calf (usually) and sold it that day. Even if it were a calf destined to be sold, likely it would have been months (and many pounds and much more money) down the road.

Personally, I believe predator loss is a cost of doing business and that we (ranchers) need to learn to live with (and indeed utilize them for our benifit) predators, however the fact is compensation rarely does what its claimants say it does.

[achtung_circus]

14. In my neck of the woods

we have coyotes, the quintessential opportunist, Eastern wolves, a whitetail specialist and Grey or Timber wolves, a moose specialist.

If a cattleman believes he's lost an animal to predation a valuator is dispatched. It's not enough to have a carcass that has been chewed on- scavenging accounts for much of that. There have to be clear signs that the animal was initially killed by the canid. That can be a tough hill to climb. The valuators tend to be a skeptical bunch, sometimes with good reason. :rofl:

I just charged a guy who used a whole litany of excuses for the charnel house that was his barn, including wolves. Sorry, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.


BTW, Hi Kali. :headbang:

[Kali]

17. Most of my "predation" losses come from the two legged variety

Or their "free-roaming" Fidos. "Fido would never hurt your cows"
Hmmm Coyote seems to have eaten Fido. Oh my.

Hi AC :hi: - old time country music in about 10 minutes at http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kxci/ppr/index.shtml if you are still in the mood. (heh)

[goforit]

15. Outstanding!!!!!

[truthisfreedom]

16. I wish they weren't so dangerous. We're completely inundated with deer here in Minneapolis.

They're a serious traffic hazard. When I'm driving at night I often see a group of 7 to 9 deer, a mix of bambis, does, and there's usually two 9-point bucks. They stand in the middle of the road and move off very slowly as I approach... sometimes just around a blind corner. Or, one might start racing my car and attempt to leap in front of it. It's nuts! And the city won't do anything about it.

We need deer birth control!

[ends_dont_justify]

19. Please, check out wolfpark.org

Anyone who believes wolves are dangerous animals should do two things: take a look at wolfpark.org and see just how wolves really act and research the historic fact that there has never been an unprovoked wolf attack in US history. There are, however, more attacks on people made by dogs a year than many other attacks by wild animals.

There are many misconceptions about the wolf, and mix-ups with his relative the coyote. Please do research on this topic before assuming they are dangerous! Thank you :)

And BTW, I am glad to see they're repopulating better. Some scientists believe wolves to have extremely high intelligence, close to if not near a level of human beings. So any and all support by people with compassionate minds and hearts should be given for this poor persecuted animal. The cattle and livestock that are killed would be killed anyway! The wolves are often unjustly killed for attacks made by dogs :)

[burrowowl]

20. I say do as our friend says

Long live wolves!

[Nihil]

21. Do your bit for the city ...

> We need deer birth control!

Next time one starts racing you, put a condom on it!

:thumbsup:

[The2ndWheel]

23. Don't sell yourself short

You're rather dangerous to them as well. Trying to move a metal box at 55 mph where deer are just trying to do whatever it is that they do at night. I'm sure if they had a city government, they would try to get either the cars off the road, or make you travel at a much lower speed.

Obviously they don't, so as is our want, we get to choose what the proper amount of deer would be in terms of our luxury and comfort. Oh well, can't stop progress.

[qwlauren35]

22. As long as its not open season.

Trap them, or permit the RANGERS to kill them. Or move them to where the deer populations have gotten crazy!

But the answer isn't a new breed of animals to hunt.