Idahoans and Wyomingites... wolves - wonderful or trouble?

[anniemcu]

I fully admit to being a tree-hugging animal lover, and so am always apt to call for protection before I allow anything untoward to happen ... but I also know that what I am told on one hand doesn't always represent the entire story.

http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/ Wolves at Risk! - Bush Administration Plan Puts Gray Wolves in the Crosshairs

Currently, the Bush admin is on the verge of removing protection from the Greater Yellowstone's gray wolves. Apparently, Wyoming and Idaho are anticipating this, and are poised to start killing wolves in Yellowstone's wild country and central Idaho.

What do you know about this, and what are your thoughts as folks 'on the scene', so to speak?

[djm]

I only know a little bit about this. The wolves actually came from Canada to help re-establish a breeding group in Yellowstone. Similar moves were done in the surrounding states. Everything I've read says the re-introduction was a great success, and that the wolves are re-establishing themselves throughout the area, exceeding all expectations for their recovery. Might it be that they are at a population level now that is sufficient without any extra protections?

The problem with some of the wild-eyed animal rights groups is that they are even more extreme than the NRA, and will lie and misrepresent situations to sway public support. I have learned to take everything they say with a large grain of salt, which makes me sad, because I want to believe them. The Sierra Club is one of the worst.

There's lots of information available about the Yellowstone wolf project: http://www.yellowstone-natl-park.com/wolfnews.htm. A similar plan to re-introduce the Mexican spotted wolf into Arizona and other southwestern states does not seem to be going as well.

djm

[susnfx]

We are starting to hear of wolves in Utah and I couldn't be happier. However, every single rancher, farmer, hunter, right-wing true believer will tell you every wolf should be eradicated--that there's no place for them on this earth. Period. There seems to be no middle ground when you talk to people. You will never convince a rancher that a wolf should be allowed within a thousand miles of his ranch.

There's a place for them in the wild, I truly believe, but there will never be agreement on this in the American west. Feelings are extraordinarily strong about it. The governor of Idaho (I'm pretty sure it's Idaho) has said he can't wait for hunts to be allowed as he wants to do some wolf killing--can't remember his exact words...just found it, he said he would be first in line for a license. He wants 550 wolves in Idaho killed, leaving a population of no more than 100.

Susan

[anniemcu]

The fact that at least 2/3 to 3/4 of the existing wolves are slated for gun target status makes me very wary of the move. I certainly lean to holding the protections. If they have reached 'safe' numbers, then certainly there should still be a serious limit on how many can be hunted. 60-75% is way too much, IMHO.

[WyoBadger]

Ah, I once again get sucked into a controversial message board thread. I thought I was free, but I have to comment on this...

I live at the base of the Wind River Mountains, and I have heard wolves howling while bowhunting for elk. Beautiful, though rather "thought provoking" for a man solo in the woods, making elk sounds, with nothing but arrows and a knife...

First of all, I don't know of anyone who is proposing killing wolves in Yellowstone. Wyoming's plan (which the feds keep rejecting) is to protect wolves in Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and contiguous wilderness areas. That is a LOT of country. Outside those areas, wolves are to be classed as a "predator," which pretty much means they're fair game. This would allow wolves room to live, but still allow ranchers to protect their livelihood and assure that hunters have something to hunt.

Susan, you're beautiful, but I have to disagree with you on this one. First of all, lumping "every single rancher, farmer, hunter, right-wing true believer" together is unfair, and you know it. Maybe you were joking--I never can tell. But that said, most ranchers, farmers, and hunters are against wolves to varying degrees. You live in Salt Lake City, correct? Being a city person or a recreational wilderness user doesn't disqualify anyone from the conversation. But most people who depend on the land for their livelihood don't like wolves. That should tell you something. What it tells me is that wolves are not stuffed animals, nor are they some sort of symbolic flagship for the environmental movement. They are brutally efficient killers who like to eat beef and mutton.

If given the choice between a healthy elk and a cow or sheep, any normal predator is going to choose the latter--predators don't like working any harder than they have to. But livestock is bread and butter to a rancher. Wolves also affect game populations, and elk and deer are bread and butter to outfitters, lodges, hotels, and anyone else who financially relies on hunting. These people feel about the same about wolves as you probably feel about the IRS or bank robbers or anyone else who takes money out of your pocket. A lot of them have a grudging respect for wolves, grizzlies, coyotes, and so on. But is it any wonder that they don't think too highly of them?

I personally think wolves are beautiful. If I raised livestock, I'd still think they were beautiful. But I sure wouldn't want them in my back yard, and I'd probably get pretty up in arms about someone who wanted to put themthere.

Is there room for wolves and people? I think so. But that doesn't mean wolves should be allowed to roam wherever they want with impunity. There's plenty of room in the Parks and wilderness areas for a sustainable population. But they really don't belong on ranch land. They want to be there because that's where the easy food is. That means some wolves are going to have to die. It's hard enough to make a go of ranching these days as it is.

A much more important issue to me personally is grizzly delisting. They're here, their numbers are growing, and after decades of complete protection, a lot of them have figured out that there's no reason for them to fear humans. At least wolves generally leave people alone...

My humble opinion.

Tom

[Jayhawk]

Interesting thread. I'm smack dab in the middle of Kansas City, but I have relatives up north in Minnesota and Wisconsin. What surprises me is that I hear nothing from those relatives about the wolves in their areas. Minnesota has a thriving wolf population, but it doesn't seem to be driving farmers or ranchers out of business. It also hasn't hurt the deer population up there at all. I do hope one of our MN based board members corrects me if I'm wrong on this.

I'd love to have an established wolf population in Missouri. We have a serious deer problem - way too many of them. Large predators would really help out quite a bit without impacting the hunting at all. The current crop of coyotes and bobcats just aren't up to the job.

Eric

[gonzo914]

Are we talking about wolves on privately held grazing land?

Or are we talking avout wolves on public grazing land leased by ranchers? (I think ranchers across the West lease permits to graze their cattle on about 250 million acres of federal land.)

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the ranchers' plight if it were the former, and I would be very opposed to the indiscriminate shooting of wolves on public land unless they posed a direct threat to the safety of real people.

[susnfx]

...You live in Salt Lake City, correct? Being a city person or a recreational wilderness user doesn't disqualify anyone from the conversation. But most people who depend on the land for their livelihood don't like wolves. That should tell you something. What it tells me is that wolves are not stuffed animals, nor are they some sort of symbolic flagship for the environmental movement. They are brutally efficient killers who like to eat beef and mutton.

Hi Tom! Clarification: yes, I live in Salt Lake City now. However, until I was 19 and again at times as an adult I've lived in southern Utah (i.e., major, major ranching country). Most of my family still lives there and I remain very close to the area. I absolutely do not consider myself city folk.

This is one of those arguments that could go on forever. There are over-emotional responses to it on both sides and I personally doubt that you could find a disinterested discussion of it anywhere. Farmers/ranchers don't want wolves. Animal lovers believe wolves should be allowed to live just like any other animal. I'm an animal lover and admittedly can't comprehend wanting to be first in line to get a license to kill a wolf or wanting to kill 550 of the 650 wolves now in Idaho. To me that's not reasonable. The Bush administration has a loathsome record on environmental issues and undoubtedly will do whatever it can to help the Idaho governor get his wish.

Susan