Latest Hot Topics from our Yellowstone Net “News and Politics” Discussion Forum
Yellowstone Net Discussion Forums
As for the spread of the wolf population, wolves are prolific animals. Twenty years was plenty of time for them to spread out throughout Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. There's a reason why their proliferation closely mirrored large continuous tracts of public land, and it had nothing to do with hunting, as they were protected for the vast majority of that time. They have filled up all of that land. If the rest of those states (eastern Montana, eastern and southern Wyoming and southern Idaho) are as high of quality habitat as you claim, why did the wolves not take up residence in those places as they did elsewhere? Even if we suppose that they would, given more time, they would first conquer the highest quality of habitat available, which indicates that the area inhabited now is far superior to those areas not inhabited, as they are directly adjacent and the wolves could have chosen either. Do I want wolves all up and down the Rocky Mountains? Heck yeah! Do I want them in the northern Midwest? You bet! How about New England? There too! But they simply don't need to be in every nook and cranny of every state. Would I like to see more wildlands all across our country, and more wolves by extension? Of course I would. But until those wildlands exist and are restored from the bottom up (vegetation first, then herbivores and finally predators), there's no point in trying to spread wolves everywhere. Why do they need to be everywhere? Why can't we compromise? Neither side is happy about the way things are right now, so we seem to have somehow worked our way to a fairly good compromise given the current state of the land anyway.
Unscientific? Really? Did you read the report? There's no way you can look at what they've done since wolves were delisted in the state and tell me that it's unscientific. Again, it's a similar system to Minnesota (The total number of wolves in each state has no bearing on how similar their management programs are, so yes I can and will compare them, because it's an apt comparison.), where the state is split into a wolf priority zone and an agricultural priority zone, and no one is complaining about them. If all Wyoming is doing is trying to kill each and every wolf, why did they halve the quota in 2013. Why didn't they bring the population down even closer to the ESA line before attempting to stabilize it? Why are the largest quotas around the fringe of the trophy zone? No one denies that they are trying to keep the wolves in the Northwest portion of the state. Why would anyone deny that when it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do? I don't see any way in which their current management strategy leads to anything but a stable, healthy wolf population in the highest quality wolf habitat in the state, while allowing the state's agricultural industry to continue unencumbered outside of that area. If you want more wolves, start fighting for the expansion of the wilderness already found in northwest Wyoming. Advocate for a prairie preserve east of the Absorokas or the Wind River range or south of the Wyoming range. Try to connect the Absorokas and the Bighorns, or the Wind River and the Medicine bow. Don't throw wolves out into a cow pasture or onto an island and call it good. That's just lazy, and ultimately, futile.
I suspect we're not going to see eye to eye on this, and I think I've laid out my view in it's entirety at this point, so unless you bring something big to the table here, I'll be returning to my obviously clueless life. Peace, and have a nice day, Sam.
Statistics: Posted by Austin Allison — Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:08 am
Austin Allison wrote:
The predator zone consists primarily of land used for ranching and agriculture, practices not conducive to high density populations of large predators.
This is utterly false. You obviously have very little experience with the wild lands of my state. Much, if not most, of the predator zone is suitable wolf habitat. The Bighorn Range, the Snowy Range, the Wyoming Range, the southern Wind River Range, the Laramie Range, Wyoming's portion of the Black Hills, as well as the complex of small ranges in the south central part of the state (Ferris, Seminoe, Shirley, Green, and Pedro ranges) could all support wolves with relatively few conflicts. Most of my state is suitable wolf habitat. The predator zone was designed to prohibit a wolf presence anywhere in the state except the the northwest 15%, because that's what they thought they could get away with.
Furthermore, pointing out that the predator zone encompasses 85% of the state, while neglecting to note that only 15% of the states wolves inhabit that portion of the state is ignorant at best and disingenuous at best
Only a small percentage of the states wolves inhabit the predator zone because they were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park less than 20 years ago. It would take decades for reproducing packs of wolves to recolonize, for instance, the Snowy Range. It becomes outright impossible with the predator zone. Further, I will point out that, since the time of delisting more wolves have been killed in the predator zone than have been killed in the trophy game area. In fact, to be killed in the predator zone has been the most common cause of death for a wolf in Wyoming since September of 2012. This despite the outright lies that were told by game and fish that only 20-30 wolves inhabited the predator zone. A year and a half later and 71 wolves have been killed in the predator zone.
Furthermore, comparing Minnesota with Wyoming is utterly foolish. Minnesota has thousands of wolves. Wyoming doesn't even have 200 (outside YNP and the rez).
but they have done a remarkable job of stepping up and managing the species in a thoroughly scientific manner with results that mirror the obviously immense effort that went into this undertaking. The current situation in Wyoming appears to be an excellent compromise on a highly contentious issue. To paint it as anything less is absolutely ridiculous.
Again, you are clueless. They have done an awful job. That coming from the son of a Wyoming game and fish "higher-up."
It has nothing to do with compromise. It is simply capitulation to a small group of wealthy ranchers, who do not and have never spoken for the public as a whole. Was the state willing to compromise when the Teton County Commissioners and Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce requested that no part of Teton county be included in the predator zone, saying that the unregulated killing of wildlife goes against their resident's values? Of course not, they went ahead and did it anyway.
To describe Wyoming's management of wolves as being done in a "thoroughly scientific manner"....I mean, talk about ridiculous. It's got nothing to do with science. There is a reason that the USFWS-commissioned independent review of Wyoming's management plan found the plan to be deficient. Their goal is to reduce the population to the bare minimum they can get away with and keep wolves to a tiny area of the state (the northwest 15%). They are required to keep 100, but they are managing for 150, to be cautious. If they weren't required by the federal government to maintain at least 100, the state would likely attempt to exterminate all of it's wolves.
It is not a wolf management plan, it is a wolf killing plan. Plain and simple. Allowing wolves to be treated like vermin in 85% of the state, even though much of that 85% is suitable wolf habitat, is not "thoroughly scientific." It is thoroughly barbaric.
Statistics: Posted by samparks23 — Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Statistics: Posted by zeaper2 — Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:11 am
2) Are there too many collars on wolves in Wyoming? Probably. Just because there are too many collars in use doesn't mean that there should be no collars. Collars provide data that can't be collected in any other way. Again, data is a good thing.
3) The predator zone is in no way arbitrary. The trophy zone consists primarily of public lands designated for conservation and preservation - goals that promote wilderness values and the protection of large, continues tracts of high quality wolf habitat. The predator zone consists primarily of land used for ranching and agriculture, practices not conducive to high density populations of large predators. Furthermore, pointing out that the predator zone encompasses 85% of the state, while neglecting to note that only 15% of the states wolves inhabit that portion of the state is ignorant at best and disingenuous at best. Minnesota employs a similar two-zone system, and I never hear anyone complaining about their management practices. I think we can all agree agree that it's unrealistic to expect, wolves to repopulate the entirety of their historic range. Ultimately, such an outcome isn't just unrealistic, but undesirable. Where do we draw the line? The boundary between high quality natural habitat and low quality, high human use habitat seems like a good place, and that's exactly what Wyoming did with the predator zone. If you want to expand wolf range, then you should be focusing on creating more habitat. The predator zone isn't perfect. I would like to see some corridors to areas of uninhabited, high quality habitat, but I suspect the wolves will make it to those places on their own despite the predator zone.
4) If you actually took the time to read and analyze the annual wolf reports from Wyoming, you might find that they are not managing for a "minimum" number of wolves. In 20112 the population outside of Yellowstone and the Wind River Reservation, where another 90 wolves reside, was reduced from 224 to about 186 - still 86 individuals more than the number required under the ESA. You'll also find that the packs suffering the highest losses from human hunting are almost entirely those at the outer fringe of the trophy hunting zone. For 2013 the season, the harvest quota was halved so that the population would remain relatively stable at the numbers present at the beginning of the year. Thus, your accusations of attempted extermination are categorically false. I had my doubts about Wyoming's wolf management plans before the wolves were delisted (How could I not after delisting within the state was withheld for a year?), but they have done a remarkable job of stepping up and managing the species in a thoroughly scientific manner with results that mirror the obviously immense effort that went into this undertaking. The current situation in Wyoming appears to be an excellent compromise on a highly contentious issue. To paint it as anything less is absolutely ridiculous.
Here's a link to the 2012 annual report a couple with more recent harvest data:
Statistics: Posted by Austin Allison — Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:51 pm
They think they may have as many as 47% of the population of wolves that reside in their territory collared this year. Not for any science or research, but rather to help them "manage" wolves and cover their arses.
You know - manage the wolves to those "minimum numbers" they so frequently use as their case for how wolves are doing in their state. This state, where 60% of the killed wolves, were killed for no reason except for being in an arbitrary >85% of this state where they can (and apparently are) killed for any (or no) reason 24x7x365, by whatever means.
With all these collared wolves, does WY G&F thinks they can cover their arses with the USFWS as they continue their all-but-extermination plans? Or maybe, they are putting a new fundraiser together to give location data to the highest bidder in the predator zone? Or for aerial gunning practice?
One thing for certain, the data won't be used in the best interest of the wolves...
Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials said 34 wolves from 16 packs have been collared this winter, bringing the state total to 87, not counting those in Yellowstone National Park. There were an estimated 186 wolves in Wyoming outside Yellowstone and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the beginning of 2013.
“We had good success catching wolves in packs that didn’t have collars in the past,” said Ken Mills, Game and Fish wolf program biologist. “We might put out three or four more collars, but that’s more or less the peak of what we will have.”
At the same time last year 50 wolves had tracking collars.
Because population estimates for 2014 are incomplete, it’s difficult to know the percentage of Wyoming wolves wearing collars. Using last year’s population of non-Yellowstone and nonreservation wolves, 187 animals, it would be 47 percent.
Statistics: Posted by Colorado_Dave — Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:54 pm
I agree Mywolvesrock, and there is a name for that!
TROLL! That's what HVG called him a year ago...the day he got banned by Dan.Welcome back V!
Statistics: Posted by SammyBear79 — Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:18 pm
Statistics: Posted by larryrainey — Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:22 pm
I wonder if these opinions would be expressed at the forum picnic?
The keyboard and monitor sometimes empowers us to say/type things we would not verbalize at the next Ynet Chatters get-together, eh?
Statistics: Posted by mywolvesrock/Charles — Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:18 am
grizynp wrote:Not sure you went to scool at all ....
Vince, you blood-sucking liberal parasite....I went to a top twenty undergrad and law school....Did pretty well, too.
Apparently, you did not go to any institution that fails third graders for spelling six letter words with only five letters...
Yes, I know that elk are considered a member of the deer family, but in the good ole U.S. of A. we refer to them as "elk".
Apparently, though our British friends find elk, deer and moose interchangeable...
Probably so that there's less to memorize....Hey, that sounds like an ideal place....for people who have difficulty passing that third grade spelling exam.
One point for you, I should read what I write.
However you go too fast one again. Yeah i mispellt one word. Is this your only answer?
You are elevating the debate, and we are making progress ....
When I say "education" your pride of your nice lawyer degree came out and you have to display all of it ... based on the context you should have understood education here is about knowledge, understanding and culture. It is clear now you have no idea what am talking about.
Please stop looking down at other people and cultures.
Yes in UK they have different uses of words. It is normal, and not better or worst. It is a british movie, so they use the british way, and they do not have to use your wording just because an american lawyer is going to listen to it. You had no idea on the way the words elk, moose and deer are used outside of USA, so once again, get some knowledge before trying to have a serious conversation.
Nothing on the previous questions?
We stay at this level (mid school: " I have a better degree than you" ) or do you have a smart answer and to bring?
By the way, a lot of people here could brag about their nice acomplishments in life (including me I believe) but they don't.
Statistics: Posted by Vince — Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:26 pm
The bison quarantine program now has a published study verifying that Yellowstone bison can be certified as disease-free to leave the park.
The study was published Saturday in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. It's authored by six veterinarians from Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, who tested APHIS quarantine methods over seven years for their effectiveness in producing brucellosis-free bison.
The authors concluded that young bison could be qualified as brucellosis-free after less than three years of quarantine.....
Statistics: Posted by Biff — Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:02 am
My sentiments too. IMO this type of name calling and condescending remarks are why so many people don't want to post here anymore.
Hayden Valley Girl, you hit it right on the head!
Statistics: Posted by vetmom — Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:46 am
Statistics: Posted by larryrainey — Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:20 pm
My sentiments too. IMO this type of name calling and condescending remarks are why so many people don't want to post here anymore.
Statistics: Posted by Hayden Valley Girl — Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:35 pm
Statistics: Posted by larryrainey — Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:39 pm