Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters

[funnybone]

Back to Story - Help
Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 5 minutes ago



Tony Saunders stalked his prey for 35 miles by snowmobile through western Wyoming's Hoback Basin, finally reaching a clearing where he took out a .270-caliber rifle and shot the wolf twice from 30 yards away.

Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies have been taken off the endangered species list and are being hunted freely for the first time since they were placed on that list three decades ago, and nowhere is that hunting easier than Wyoming.

Most of the state with the exception of the Yellowstone National Park area has been designated a "predator zone," where wolves can be shot at will.

For Saunders, killing that wolf was a long-awaited chance to even things out because he has lost two horses to wolves and blames the canines for depleting local big game herds.

"It's hard for people to understand how devastating they can be," said Saunders, 39, who ranches at Bondurant, Wyo., 30 miles southeast of Jackson, Wyo.

Since federal protection was lifted March 28 and states took over wolf management, 37 wolves have been killed, just over 2 percent of their population. Since 66 animals were transplanted to the region 13 years ago, an estimated 1,500 now roam Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

Environmental and animal rights groups plan to file a lawsuit Monday seeking an emergency injunction to block the killings and trying to put wolves back on the endangered list.

They predict that if states continue to control the animals' fate and proceed with public hunts, wolves could be driven back nearly to extermination in the region.

"There will be opportunistic shooting 365 days a year. This will become a continual black hole for wolves," said Franz Camenzind with the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, which is joining the lawsuit.

Despite the removal of wolves from the endangered list, killing them in the Northern Rockies is nothing new. Last year, a record 186 were shot, primarily by wildlife agents, for killing and harassing livestock.

But since the beginning of this year, 59 wolves already have been reported killed in the three Northern Rockies states, about three times the 19 killed over the same period last year — most of them just in the month since they lost federal protection.

State officials blamed this year's increased hunting in part on heavy snow, which kept wolf packs at lower elevations where sheep and cattle range.

"That's the reality of managing wolves in a modern landscape. Some of them are going to be removed," said Eric Keszler, spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

In fact, entire packs have been legally killed off in past years because of livestock conflicts, according to biologist Mike Jimenez with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

With public hunts planned this year, federal biologists project the three states will maintain a population of 883 to 1,240 wolves at least for the next few years — well above the government's goal of maintaining a population of at least 300 wolves.

But wolf advocates say the states could systematically cull the population right down to that minimum unless a court intervenes.

Idaho and Wyoming in particular have a "hostile legal regime" that is stacked against wolves, said Doug Honnold, the Earthjustice attorney preparing the lawsuit.

"If anybody can kill wolves, you have no way of ensuring wolf killing isn't excessive," he said.

Honnold and other advocates say a minimum of 2,000 to 3,000 wolves is needed to protect their genetic diversity. They contend the government was on track to meet that goal when it caved in to political pressure and stripped the species of endangered status.

Some state officials and ranchers, including Saunders, acknowledge a lingering hostility for wolves, which had been exterminated in the region in the 1930s.

"There's times I'd like to get rid of all of them, but that's not realistic either," Saunders said. "And I'd like for my son one day to be able to hunt them, too."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_re_us/hunting_wolves;_ylt=AmUdcqAUChetU2mYvxtJQIWs0NUE

 

[Winchester 73]

This is a very contentious issue, especially in Idaho,Montana and Wyoming, states surrounding Yellowstone,N.P.
Talking to locals while visiting the area, the conversation can get heated real fast if you bring up wolves.

 

[1911Tuner]

I like Wolves, and wish them well...but I know that they can be a problem if allowed to proliferate unchecked and unmanaged...just like any other large species. That goes double for large predators that hunt in packs.

While I understand and sympathize with the plight of the people in the areas affected by their growing presence...we have the Red Wolf here, so I do understand...I don't think that a 365-day open season is the correct answer. They serve a purpose, and should be allowed to do what they were intended to do...within limits.

Yes...People will lose some livestock and even some family pets. Harsh reality that man has faced since man has been here. But, if we reduce their numbers to the point that they can't fill their intended role...we lose more in the long run. Their natural prey, having no check and balance system, overpopulate and overrun...and then become inbred, diseased...and start down the spiral toward endangered or even extinct. Also...Those diseases that affect wild hoofed animals can jump the gap to domestic livestock...so depopulating the wolves can turn around and work the other way.

Large predators are healthy, and they're necessary. I cast a vote for controlled seasons...with, of course...allowing the killing of animals that are endangering a rancher's herd and/or posing a threat to human life as a "Special Circumstance" criteria. If they're on your land, and you have livestock...or they venture too close to the residence...shoot. Make them afraid, and they'll be more apt to keep their distance.

 

[The Tourist]

If we had responsible hunters who cared about things beyond the tip of their noses this argument might hold water. The problem in Wisconsin is that the northern part of our state thinks 'violating' (poaching) is a rite of passage. They even brag about it. It's what a "good father" teaches his son.

With that mentality, we're just giving idiots something else to shoot at.

The problem in Wisconsin is usually an "animal problem," and the answer is always "shoot it." They don't care what it is, whether they can eat it or not, but if it bleeds it's their heaven-sent right to blow it to hell.

Over the past few years we're had pressure to include crows and morning doves to the list of things you can hunt in my state. I've read sports magazines my whole life and never saw a recipe for "raven."

My four years spent working in a sporting goods store has convinced me that slob hunting is worse than at any other time.

One check-in station reported that during our "earn a buck program," the hunters would sometimes simply kick a doe off their tailgate and demand a buck tag like they were ordering fast food.

And yes, I've sharpened a knife from a slob hunter that used his fixed blade to hack down a posted barbwire fence.

Unless the cull can be controlled, the idiots will shoot at anything that even looks like a wolf. After all, they are already ventilating our DNR's "cement deer."

 

[Karl Hungus]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fellow Wisconsinite pretty much agreeing with everything you said.

I've heard plenty hunters here in the north moan that the wolves are killing all the deer. The deer herd is larger than it's ever been. It's just that the deer aren't stupid any more because they have a natural predator. Gone are the days that some once-a-year hunter can dump 50lbs of corn 20 yards off a road and plug a deer opening morning. Now you actually have to do something called "hunting". Boo hoo. Maybe this will weed out many of the guys who go to deer camp with hunting the being the last thing on their minds.

Also agree with not killing anything you're not going to eat. I'm fine with varmint hunters, but personally I'd rather snipe clay pigeons.

 

[1911Tuner]

If we had responsible hunters who cared about things beyond the tip of their noses this argument might hold water.

I understand that, too. We have our share of slobs who do all the things that you described. There's no easy answer to this question, and about all that can be done is to make the penalties for indiscriminate or illegal killing severe. It won't stop the worst of'em, but it might give the more casual wannabes reason to reconsider their options for a day's entertainment. When word gets around that somebody lost their guns and their truck and their hunting license and everything they had in their pockets, down to their fingernail clippers...it will probably dissuade a few others.

 

[jimbeam]

What is too many wolves in Wi.?

You boys don't have a very good opinion of the people in northern Wisconsin, do you? I resent the way you lump everyone together, not very high road. I live in the middle of the state, but own land in northern Wi and have had wolves on or around it for the last 15 years or so. A few are nice to have around, but I think we are reaching a point where the numbers might be getting out of hand. I have been followed by a wolf on at least one occasion, and have it howl at me until I left the area. If the wolf lovers from Madison and the southern part of the state want wolves, get the DNR to trap some and move them to your area,you will save on gas and won't have to travel to hear them howl.

 

[Dienekes]

Living in the middle of land grazed to dirt, with very few ranchers who do not have day jobs and wives working in town to scrape by, I see the wolf issue as a generalized lashing out at a world grown unkind to a dysfunctional way of life. Wolves are just a symbol and as such are potent symbols.

Some months ago I saw a wolf out on a ridgeline and as far as I'm concerned he fit right in perfectly.

A hundred years of ranching has damn near ruined some awfully nice country.

I suppose there are those who would wholeheartedly advocate extinction of the last grizzly as well.

 

[Dstoerm]

After seeing the impact of predators on livestock, and seeing some very ignorant non-local hunters, it would seem to me that if a community sees a valid threat to thier livelihood on owned land, such as wolves or coyotes, hawks, etc, that the solution should be handled locally.

Ranchers should be allowed to limit the wolf population according to their needs on their own land. This system would allow land owning ranchers or livestock breeders to kill predators as their county sees fit - if it kills your property, then you can eliminate the threat as you see fit.

I cannot, however, abide a system that allows a person from New York to go to Wyoming to shoot wolves for sport. Now if the rancher needs help controlling the population on his land, and a hired hand kills a wolf, then once again it is simply defending one's livelihood.

Everything gets more complicated and more cumbersome when the Feds and the media get involved. People who work the land and its resources are not a bunch of natural born killers. I have been a hunter all my life and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that our hunting licenses, stamps and our contributions to Ducks Unlimited, QU, PU and others have contributed more to wildlife control, land managment and wildreness preservation than any damned activist group from Washington has ever done. We hunters have always been the original, and best American conservationists.

It would all be much simpler if people without common sense would let those that posess it do what they know to be right.

-Dave

 

[Grizfire]

I have lived in Montana for 25 years and have lived in Idaho for 5 years. In this time, I have been a avid outdoors-man.

I have never seen wolf. And I have only heard a pack howl once.

I'll tell you what I do see every time I go out is...

(1)ATV's riding on gated roads closed to motorized vehicles. Which on several occasions has ruined my game. Not to mention ATV tracks off road where the landscape was torn up.

(2)numerous forest service signs with bullet holes in them. Usually to the extent that I can't see the road number. Which has negatively impacted my navigation on several occasions.

(3)I see cattle allowed to roam free range on public land where they tear up the ground and increase sediment in trout spawning areas.

(4) I see deer and elk almost every single time I'm in the woods.

(5) Twice this spring alone I have seen big game skeletons with the forehead sawed out???

And yet, no wolves. Where are they? Well really, theres only 1300 of them.

Yep, its the other species I have a problem with.

 

[catfish101]

There is no way that wolves can be devastating cattle herds. They are going to get one every now and then but that is part of it. We don't have wolves but we have allot of coyotes. They aren't hard on cattle herds. We have lost calves to them but it is pretty rare. One thing I have noticed is that rabbits seem to be coming back in population. It could be that the coyotes are finally getting the wild house cats thinned down.

Some friends of mine have farms that a house cat won't survive more then a few weeks.

A person would have to be an crazy to think that the wolves are denting the dear population. There are more killed by Fords then wolves every year. They will actually help it. They will take care of the sickly ones. Just the coyotes do here.

 

[kentucky bucky]

These anti hunter groups live in a Disneyland mentality. Look at what has happened since NJ banned black bear hunting. Now the have bears walking around school yards in broad daylight and harrassing people in their homes. Just last week they have actually talked about allowing hunts again. The same type problems since CA banned Mtn Lion hunts. These "anti's" look at farmers as evil killers, because they are "commies" at heart, and to them the farmers are evil for wanting to make a profit and therefore a living.

 

[jimbeam]

This discussion originally was about hunting surplus wolves, and veered off to slob hunters and too many ATV's. That is the whole point, which a few here are missing. Too many of anything is hard on the environment.
Too many deer eat the woods bare, you don't need cattle to do it. Too many people do not balance nature, either. Education and setting examples to others, especially young people, is necessary to eliminate the slobs that thrash the outdoors. Sitting on the computer cussing out ranchers and damming a section of northern Wisconsin does not contribute a thing that will change the situation.

 

[jimbeam]

As far as eating deer, wolves are very skilled, some of the loggers report that in the winter some packs will kill 15 to 20 a day in the winter and they do not eat them all, at least in the immediate time frame. It's kind of a stockpiling effort to eat the venison at a later date. The one item people do not realize is in the winter when wolves are pursuing their prey, all the other deer in the area are also stressed from avoiding the area of the chase. I have followed a pair of wolves chasing a large adult deer in the winter, after about a quarter mile the deer ran into a bedding area and the deer scattered in all directions. I'll bet some of the ranchers here will state that harassment, not just the killing, is also damaging to their herds.

 

[Grizfire]

Too many of anything is hard on the environment

+1

So are there too many wolves? Or are there too many people? Lets be honest now.


Man must kill wolves to make room for his activities, which includes cattle ranching and trophy hunting.

Anthropocentrism at its best.

 

[Dstoerm]

Of course, sir, you are right. But, the food chain is what it is, and no crying liberals will ever be able to persuade the lion not to hunt the lamb.

 

[jimbeam]

If I did admit we have too many people, what do you suggest we do with them? Start the furnaces?

 

[Grizfire]

If I did admit we have too many people, what do you suggest we do with them? Start the furnaces?

You have got to be kidding. This is not rocket science.

A little birth control can go a long way. Many parents are attempting to have as many children as they can.

Here is a quote for you to ponder...

and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.

And so we have over-populated, and we shoot wolves who get in the way. It could not be any clearer than that.

 

[CypherNinja]

Too many people? Probably not, but it will become a serious issue at some point.

The primary problem right now is too many inconsiderate people, I think. A system needs to be worked out that strikes a good balance between wolves/deer/livestock/man/etc...

Also, to show a little of my Libertarian side, I doubt the Feds would do an awesome job of it. I'd have more faith in the Hunter/Conservation groups that Dstoerm mentioned. My uncle is a big DU contributer.

 

[Zangetsu]

The thing about predatory populations is that their food supply will naturally limit their numbers. I've never heard of a situation where the top of the food chain needed to be lopped off; they are naturally the fewest in number as it is. Additionally, wolves, being pack animals, suffer greatly when members of their pack suddenly die without warning. A pack of 12 one day that finds itself a pack of 10 the next is going to be in sorry shape when it comes to hunting for a while simply because they won't have figured out a new strategy. They'll get hungry, and go for easier prey, like fenced in herds or pets. In turn, people will scream about how big a problem they are, and the cycle continues. I don't know why they were even taken off the list.

Canadian geese on the other hand...those damn things are protected by like 8 different laws, including the federal migratory bird protection act, which protects even the ones that don't migrate. The result are pissed off birds filling my sidewalks with crap and hissing at me as I'm trying to go about my business. Oh how I wish I could pull out a .44 Mag and give a few of them what they've had coming for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNG time.

 

[qdemn7]

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that any farmer or rancher has any right to stay in business. That's harsh, but it's the truth. Farming and ranching is Big Business, and like too many other BBs, they have had an inordinate amount of influence on Legislation in this country. Any threat to their profit margin is deemed a crisis of epic proportions, and must be eliminated.

 

[El Tejon]

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that any farmer or rancher has any right to stay in business.

Perhaps you should look at the Fifth Amendment's right to life, liberty and property?

 

[RyanM]

They should just ship some of those wolves up here. I'm sure hunters like having so many deer that you can't fart without hitting one, but there are just too many of those things, running out in the middle of the roads and hitting cars, and stuff. Can't go 20 miles without seeing a roadkilled deer. Some more predators might help even things out. All the wolves left this state decades ago.

 

[jrfoxx]

Quote:
I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that any farmer or rancher has any right to stay in business.

Perhaps you should look at the Fifth Amendment's right to life, liberty and property?

Agreed.And I KNOW I haven't seen anything in the constitution about "wolf's (wolve's?) rights" at all, even mildly hinted at.............

 

[XDKingslayer]

But wolf advocates say the states could systematically cull the population right down to that minimum unless a court intervenes.

Here is the problem with protecting the wolves and this seems to apply to most game and even fish.

A happy medium can't be found. The People that want to protect them end up over-protecting them and then the animal because a nuisance or unhealthy.

The people that want to hunt/kill them will do it to the other extreme, taking the animal down to numbers too low or to extinction.