That's it, impeach him!

So we re-introduced a species to the environment just to start killing them again?

No, they have rebound to sufficient levels where the individual states can pay to manage them.

Animals are supposed to come off the federal protection at some point.

The same thing has happened to other animals.

This is a sign that the endangered species act works.

The question is are there sufficient animals that are healthy enough and genetically diverse enough to allow the animals to thrive.

As someone who lived in the area and worked with the biologists of the state...It's a tough road. Wolves are not popular. Most of the people who think they should be there don't suffer any loss from their presence--would you like it if they introduced a large, active predator into your backyard?

The wolves will survive. They're spreading well beyond the confines of the original introduction area, and they're getting new blood from Canada. I hate that animals pay the price in animal/man encounters, and I know that if the management were based entirely on science, it would be vastly different.

But as a hunter, I share the same view of the person who posted this in the New York Times.

Each state has to protect 20 (yes 20) breeding pairs. (As revised by the administration, it would require only that each state protect 20 breeding pairs and 200 total wolves. That could allow as many as 900 recently protected wolves to be slaughtered.)

I want to know how they are going to accomplish this? Are the breeding pairs tagged and monitored? How do I know that by someone killing Alpha male 1, that we are leaving Alpha female on her own, thus changing the dynamics of the pack?

The author further had the balls to post what I echoed.

The revised rule is aimed not at protecting cattle or sheep but at protecting elk and deer for hunters. In our view, hunters would be wise to oppose this. The question for them is whether they want to hunt in what passes for nature, complete with a predator like the wolf, or in what passes for a game farm.

I did not get ANY deer this year due to coyotes being in the area of my favorite hunting spot. I can even kill a coyote on sight and am ENCOURAGED to do so, by the state as there are no limits and they are considered a nuisance animal and I explained to my hunting buddy I just couldn't do it unless my life was in danger.

Heck, the deer are their natural meal for dinner not mine. I don't mind wildlife getting dibs on their dinner. I can stop at McDonalds on the way home.

The whole thing is disgusting to me. I almost posted this, but sometimes I worry that my animal interests get boring.

If the wolf population starts rapidly declining again, I'm gonna call the Government myself and scream at them for hours.

Maybe send them some stuffed wolves.

You may be right, but the states manage to do it with other animals including animals that are allowed to be hunted in limited numbers. Mountain lions and _______ bears. (I forget which, I think it is black bears) These are successfully managed by the states. I imagine they could do the same with these animals.

Black bears--grizzlies are still protected.

And yes, biologists DO know who the alpha animals are in each pack.

Coyotes and deer populations Coyotes are in decline in areas with wolves--wolves hunt and kill both coyotes and foxes.

There is a balance that does not require any intervention on OUR part. If there isn't enough to eat, animals die, be it the herbivores or the predators. It has happened for millions of years.

Seems stupid to bring something in to kill it. ({and don't think wolf hunting won't be big biz for hunters who want a shot at one).

20 breeding pairs or 40 wolves for the state. Doesn't that seem like a small number?

How shall they mark the wolves able to be culled for the hunter who gets the ticket to kill one, I wonder?

The same way they handle the bison 'hunts'. A biologist goes out with the hunter and assists.

However--even if an alpha is killed, another animal will be promoted. It's not like the pack will just cease to exist.

And while, yeah, a balance can be achieved in a natural environment, those don't exist anymore. Many moons ago, a particularly bad winter in Wyoming resulted in many elk dying. The backlash from letting this completely NATURAL process occur resulted in feeding grounds being established and manned, at great cost, by the State. Now, those same feed grounds are one of the reasons diseases spread through the herds so quickly. They're also one of the reasons why Wyoming is considered trophy quality hunting.

Wildlife management is not based 100% on biology. With hot button issues, I'd be surprised if the decisions are backed by science half the time. It's a political world, and the state management agencies get caught in the middle.

I hear wolf meat is delicious, not as greasy as dog. I'm all for "management" of the species, now if they could have just saved the Dodo, I hear they were tasty fried.

So I realize that when I go hunting, my life doesn't depend on the food that I shoot. I have family who can't afford a whole lot of food, and they live way in the country. They really -do- use what they shoot as their primary source of food. That by itself wouldn't be a huge point against the wolf re-introduction, yes. But since the wolves have significantly depleted the elk and deer populations and increased their own they are turning to the livestock of ranchers. The previously mentioned family happens to make their living off of sheep and the wolves particularly enjoy baby lambs.

I don't have a problem with the wolves doing what they do within the confines of their biological habitat and all of that. I think they're a beautiful and amazing animal and it's a shame that we hunted them to such devistatingly low numbers. It is, however, a problem for them to be killing the sheep, dogs, cattle, etc., of the people who are trying to make a living. Maybe if there was a legitimate(and not ridiculous) system for reimbursing the ranchers for their losses then this whole thing would be fine.

Huh.

Hunting is not allowed within the borders of Yellowstone National Park.

However, due to the incredible populations of big game animals living in the Park who then migrate to lower elevation areas, hunters have tremendous opportunities in the Forest and Wilderness areas outside the park boundary. Please browse through the gateway communities to obtain specific information on hunting in the region.



Doesn't seem depleted per Yellowstone parks page!

Please provide proof of that first--while I was in WY, there was NEVER any evidence that population levels for any of the prey species was declining that wasn't readily attributable to other causes, such as severe drought and habitat encroachment from human activities.

Second, there IS a legitimate system in place for reimbursing live stock losses from predation, at least in Wyoming and Montana. Compensation is based on fair market value for the animals lost, and requires sufficient investigation to prove that a) it WAS from a managed species and b) the owner made due effort to prevent the loss. This means that if hay is being consumed by deer, there's a fence around the hay stack, and the property owner permits hunting on their land. For cattle, it means calling a biologist to come out and examine the kill site and corpse, and taking steps to discourage the predator from livestock areas.

I apologise, I suppose that I'm speaking from the point of view of the people I know who have experienced these things. I shouldn't have made such generalizations. Let me start over:

In the area my family lives in Montana there is a lot of trouble with wolves. The elk population in that area is down to almost nothing and there is not one rancher who has not had livestock taken by wolves. It is close enough to the park that the wolves are fairly common there. Because the population of wolves has expanded, so has their territory.

As for the law? It definitely sounds like it is a legitimate system, but in many areas it is not carried out the way it should be. Anyone who reports that a wolf has been eating his livestock must go through months of testing and having people on their land. Often if they do not find DNA evidence (sightings don't generally give enough evidence unless a picture of the animal in the act of killing the animals can be presented) the ranchers do not get reimbursed. Another problem is that if they do get reimbursed it is for that one animal. No account is taken of the offspring of that animal. I know that for my family, the ewes are worth almost nothing whereas the lambs they will have are worth quite a bit but they are not accounted for.

Again, i'm sorry that I came off sounding harsh and ridiculous (i re-read it, and agree that I didn't state things well) this is just an issue that hits close to home for me and I am fairly passionate about it so I just typed without really thinking about what I was saying.