Yellowstone In the News


Latest Hot Topics from our Yellowstone Net “News and Politics” Discussion Forum

YNet Forums

Yellowstone Net Discussion Forums

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Wolf Escapes Yellowstone Bear World; Killed by Owner

So sorry to hear about this incident, especially, since we've driven past this business many times over the years and, as recently as the day before the shooting. Personally, I think the owner did the right thing. An animal "on the run" or one that's frightened, injured or hungry poses a serious threat to every living creature in the area, including the local residents, their pets, livestock and all the other wildlife in the area. It's a shame that animals can't read road signs. If the wolf had realized that it was so close to the Park, it probably would have made a mad dash for the Park boundary. But animals can't read so must rely on the good judgement of humans to do the right thing. IMO, the owner didn't have much of a choice in this situation and acted appropriately. He shot the wolf before it had a chance to hurt or kill someone or another animal. Yes, he probably should have called the local wildlife officer before he made the decision to shoot the wolf. But we also know that wildlife officials are very busy folks, especially, at this time of the year. So, by the time a wildlife officer would have arrived on site, most likely, the wolf would have been long gone and very difficult to find. The article doesn't mention if the owner head called the local wildlife officer before he shot the wolf. So for all we know, he may have been told to shoot the wolf before it became a serious problem. I rely on facts and not conjecture before passing judgement on people. The thing that I do question, however, is why this kind of situation wasn't addressed by the ID county and state officials before the owner was given a license to operate his business. A business, such as this, is fraught with inherent danger, risks and liability. So, why was the man allowed to operate such a business in the first place? Something like this was bound to happen. More importantly, what if the wolf had attacked and killed someone or had killed a family pet or began killing livestock? After all, that's what animals do when they get hungry...they kill to eat so they can survive. So let's not be too quick to pass judgement on the business owner. Few people enjoy seeing any animal killed, be it wild or domestic. But, from where I sit, the business owner did the right thing before the wolf became a threat to the surrounding communities and to other wildlife. Hopefully, this incident will bring about some positive changes at the county, state and federal level. Personally, I think it would behoove and be in the best interest of all government entities to review and assess more closely the applications of people, who want to operate a wildlife business. Ya think? But what the heck do I know. I'm just one of those silly "deplorables" who lives north of the ID border. :o:lol:

Statistics: Posted by yellvet — Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:39 am


Author: yellvet
Posted: April 26, 2017, 5:39 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: RIP Canyon Female Alpha

TNBob wrote:
That's very sad information. Any hint if disabling injuries/conditions were human or nature related?


from the YNP press release:
"Anyone with information about this incident is encouraged to call the Yellowstone National Park Tip Line at 307-344-2132"

I would think this rules out natural causes.

Statistics: Posted by Steve — Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:29 pm


Author: Steve
Posted: April 19, 2017, 3:29 am

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: RIP Canyon Female Alpha

That's very sad information. Any hint if disabling injuries/conditions were human or nature related?

Statistics: Posted by TNBob — Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:29 pm


Author: TNBob
Posted: April 19, 2017, 1:29 am

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: RIP Canyon Female Alpha

Corrected link that Andrew provided.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/17014.htm

Here's another link that says basically the same thing.

http://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/famous- ... -launched/

Sad news indeed.

Statistics: Posted by Nikon_nerd — Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:44 pm


Author: Nikon_nerd
Posted: April 14, 2017, 8:44 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: RIP Canyon Female Alpha

Damn. :(

Statistics: Posted by RikWriter — Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:04 am


Author: RikWriter
Posted: April 14, 2017, 4:04 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • RIP Canyon Female Alpha


Park staff identified the wolf as the white female of the Canyon Pack, one of three known white wolves in the park. This wolf lived to 12 years, twice the age of an average wolf in the park and had a broad range that extended from Hayden Valley to the Firehole River area to the northern portion of the park. For these reasons, the wolf was one of the most recognizable and sought after by visitors to view and photograph.


https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/17014.htm

Statistics: Posted by atw527 — Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:55 am


Author: atw527
Posted: April 14, 2017, 2:55 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

Jimmy_Bob wrote:
It wasn't until I started thinking that was one big, white coyote with no tan or brown coloration and that is where they have been heard. The Wyoming plan does not allow poison or trapping. The wolves are too smart to be eliminated by shooting. My thoughts are wolves will become more wary of humans and thus harder to spot outside the Parks, continue to expand their range at a somewhat slower pace, and outside of a massive illegal poisoning effort will not be wiped out from areas they currently are even outside the trophy zone. We shall see.


Jimmy_Bob - the quote above is part of my reason for me thinking you do not understanding what has happened.
But first, I cannot even imagine not knowing the difference between a 35 pound coyote and an 85 pound wolf. And anyone that doesn't know the sound of a wolf when they hear it doesn't need to be in the woods as far as I am concerned. It is very possible you saw a wolf in the Bighorns - they have been trying to disperse to suitable habitat in Wyoming for years but the state statute and locals are not allowing it. At least 115 wolves were documented as killed in Wyoming in 2016 when they were "protected" by the ESA again - that's because of kowtowing to wyoming politicians by the USFWS's and their guy named Tyler Abbott that didn't know (or care) what he was doing. They have been, and will continue to be extirpated in Wyoming outside of the "trophy zone" until Wyoming politicians become ethical, or another court decision shuts this "plan" down again and stops kowtowing to kill requests.

Most importantly, why do you think the wyoming plan "does not allow poison or trapping" as you stated above? In 85% of Wyoming wolves can be killed without any reason, by whatever method desired, and doesn't even require a hunting license to do so. You can gas them in dens, trap them with legholds, snares, whatever, you can bait and poison them with legal poisons, you can even kill them on private property WITHOUT the property owners permission. That's why the WY plan is so contentious and will remain so until it is rewritten. This is not how any ethical wildlife agency manages native wildlife - it is the WY cowboy, flip-it-to-the-feds way.

This is how it was before Sept 2014 and how it is now with this new court decision. Have you read the state statute? Here is a summary of it: https://www.animallaw.info/statute/wy-predatory-animals-chapter-6-predatory-animals

Maybe you are reading the 2014 court ruling, and not the one that overturned it?

Statistics: Posted by Colorado_Dave — Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:57 pm


Author: Colorado_Dave
Posted: March 22, 2017, 11:57 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

Jimmy_Bob wrote:
IMO there is enough bloated bureaucracy in the EPA that its budget can be cut without hosing the environment. EPA should just bebig enough for the following: be a check on making sure each state environmental agency is doing their job, be there for projects that cross state lines, act as a somewhat central hub for research and communication between the state agencies, and a few other national environmental duties. Already as it is now the state regulatory agencies do far more legwork when it comes to permitting than the EPAWhen permitting very few things are sent to the EPA, most applications and information are sent to the state agencies.


I will say I was not clear here. see the bold above to clarify my position.

Statistics: Posted by Jimmy_Bob — Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:19 pm


Author: Jimmy_Bob
Posted: March 22, 2017, 9:19 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

Colorado_Dave wrote:
Having a hard time understanding what you wrote there...

It seems like you are saying that Wyoming can manage things in Wyoming better than the Feds, yet the Feds manage more than 50% of the land in Wyoming. Are you one of those people that think that the Wyoming should gain control of the land within it's borders? Everyone knows what would happen there - an inability to manage the lands would cause a sell-off to the highest bidder - bye, bye public lands... Or maybe you are one of those that think that the public lands can be managed better by the feds, but the wildlife that occupy those lands are better managed by the state. Well, same thing - the wildlife loses out to the highest bidder (livestock squatters and hunters in the case of wolves).

Then, you state some gibberish about the court ruling being a good think for the pro-wolf crowd and that the ruling will "make it hard to have a hunting season in Wyoming"??? Huh? the court ruling essentially let's WY proceed as it was before 2014. Wyoming didn't even bother to rewrite their plan, they just waited for politicians to push their same ole plan as-is even though it has been rejected no less than 3 times so far...

Then you suggest that enviro groups use wolves for fundraising? The fact is that the hunting groups use wolves all the time! RMEF and BGF being some of the worst offenders. Unlike the enviro groups, they use mythology and ridiculous lies to get $$ from their freaks...

https://www.facebook.com/biggameforevercolorado/photos/rpp.214564068885489/422431984765362/?type=3&theater


With all due respect, you are talking to a professional here and just showing you are a fish out of water when it comes to permitting. I am talking EPA vs state DEQ's permitting not BLM land management. Those are very, very different things. What I am saying is that already state regulatory agencies do far more legwork than the EPA. What I am saying is the person living closer to the permitted action tend to care more about that particular action because they actually live in the area.

As for land transfer, I am not a supporter of transfer of federally managed lands to state. While I disagree your assertion that financially it couldn't work, I am against land transfer for other reasons. Although, I will say having lands in Federal hands is no guarantee that those lands stay public or accessible. That said I have actually spoken up at local political events against calls for land transfer and voted against the measure as a delegate at our county convention.

I bolded the above because that is the current system with the exception of endangered species and National Parks. Who manages the elk, moose, black bear, mountain lions, on BLM and National Forest managed lands in Wyoming? It is the Wyoming Game and Fish. Similarly down in Colorado, it is the Colorado Parks and Wildlife that manage the elk on National Forest lands.

Have you read the court ruling? If not, then for goodness sake where do you get the gall to tell me I am writing gibberish. Read the ruling and pay attention to the discussion about "could" and "shall" and relating to the statute in question. Hint that portion starts on page 15, but you really should read the whole document. Before I go any further, I will not discuss this ruling with you until you actually read it. I doubt you would have written that other bold part if you had actually read and comprehended the ruling.

As for the last point you make, again you flew by and missed my point. My point was in this case environmental groups have reason to celebrate, that reason being the successful reintroduction of wolves. Yet because, and yes they do use wolves to raise money especially in urban centers, they cannot celebrate because it would impact their fundraising. This is one of the points made in CJ Box's book (which I would recommend reading and I don't want to spoil but I don't think it would offend your political bent). What that group you linked to does has nothing to do with my point and at most is like my toddler saying well they do it too.

Statistics: Posted by Jimmy_Bob — Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:56 pm


Author: Jimmy_Bob
Posted: March 22, 2017, 8:56 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

Having a hard time understanding what you wrote there...

It seems like you are saying that Wyoming can manage things in Wyoming better than the Feds, yet the Feds manage more than 50% of the land in Wyoming. Are you one of those people that think that the Wyoming should gain control of the land within it's borders? Everyone knows what would happen there - an inability to manage the lands would cause a sell-off to the highest bidder - bye, bye public lands... Or maybe you are one of those that think that the public lands can be managed better by the feds, but the wildlife that occupy those lands are better managed by the state. Well, same thing - the wildlife loses out to the highest bidder (livestock squatters and hunters in the case of wolves).

Then, you state some gibberish about the court ruling being a good think for the pro-wolf crowd and that the ruling will "make it hard to have a hunting season in Wyoming"??? Huh? the court ruling essentially let's WY proceed as it was before 2014. Wyoming didn't even bother to rewrite their plan, they just waited for politicians to push their same ole plan as-is even though it has been rejected no less than 3 times so far...

Then you suggest that enviro groups use wolves for fundraising? The fact is that the hunting groups use wolves all the time! RMEF and BGF being some of the worst offenders. Unlike the enviro groups, they use mythology and ridiculous lies to get $$ from their freaks...

https://www.facebook.com/biggameforevercolorado/photos/rpp.214564068885489/422431984765362/?type=3&theater

Statistics: Posted by Colorado_Dave — Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:17 pm


Author: Colorado_Dave
Posted: March 22, 2017, 7:17 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

Having done permitting, I have to say in the end I have more confidence in the local Sheridan DEQ folks as far as caring about Sheridan and Johnson County, WY than the Cheyenne DEQ folks who in turn I have more confidence in than the EPA guys in the regional office in Denver, who again in turn I have more confidence in than the EPA guys in D.C.

IMO there is enough bloated bureaucracy in the EPA that its budget can be cut without hosing the environment. EPA big enough for the following: be a check on making sure each state environmental agency is doing their job, be there for projects that cross state lines, act as a somewhat central hub for research and communication between the state agencies, and a few other national environmental duties. When permitting very few things are sent to the EPA, most applications and information are sent to the state agencies.

Regardless this has little to do with wolves which are USFW, WYG&F, and the USFW thinks it is time for wolves in Wyoming to be delisted. That is something that wolf advocates should be celebrating. The wolf reintroduction into the GYA has been a success so far. Instead I see a bunch of shoot from the hip debbie downers here. If you read this opinion, there is a lot in there that will make the anti-wolf hardliners cringe. I think with the language in that ruling, it will be very difficult for Wyoming to have a hunting season on wolves in the trophy area.

I think the C.J. Box book Savage Run nails this as far as attitudes go. Environmental organizations can never celebrate because they always need some threat out there to keep the donations coming in.

Statistics: Posted by Jimmy_Bob — Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:25 am


Author: Jimmy_Bob
Posted: March 22, 2017, 5:25 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

"While the incoming Trump administration shows a callous disregard for the environment, liberals have conveniently forgotten that some of the most disastrous environmental and public health crises in U.S. history have occurred on President Obama's watch."

http://www.mintpressnews.com/donald-tru ... ma/223540/

Statistics: Posted by F55 — Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:35 am


Author: F55
Posted: March 22, 2017, 1:35 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

Hayden Valley Girl wrote:
And Trump cares even less, not just about the wildlife, but the environment either.


+100!

Case in point, EPA is being gutted by the "eco-conscious" Trump administration.

Ask yourself just one question, how much do you think a lifetime real estate developer cares about the wilderness or the environment? The closest thing to wilderness Donald Trump has ever experienced was riding around in his golf cart on one of his golf courses.

Statistics: Posted by Nikon_nerd — Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:28 pm


Author: Nikon_nerd
Posted: March 16, 2017, 10:28 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

RikWriter wrote:
Nikon_nerd wrote:
F55 wrote:... Obama liked to grab land from the states, but didn't care so much about wildlife.


Wow, right out of the Trump/Bannon playbook ! ... Obama tapped my phones ! Obama hates wildlife ! Obama is responsible for ____!



No, it's a fact, no matter who says it. Obama did not give a damn about wildlife. He did nothing to preserve endangered species. He didn't hate them, they were just unimportant to him. And why would they be? He's a city guy who grew up in Chicago. Why would he care or even know about grizzlies or wolves? He made moves that he was told by his advisors were "pro environment" but those advisors didn't give a damn about endangered species either.

And Trump cares even less, not just about the wildlife, but the environment either.

Statistics: Posted by Hayden Valley Girl — Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:12 pm


Author: Hayden Valley Girl
Posted: March 16, 2017, 9:12 pm

Yellowstone Related News and Politics • Re: Ruling from DC Court on Wyoming rules

RikWriter wrote:
Nikon_nerd wrote:
F55 wrote:... Obama liked to grab land from the states, but didn't care so much about wildlife.


Wow, right out of the Trump/Bannon playbook ! ... Obama tapped my phones ! Obama hates wildlife ! Obama is responsible for ____!



No, it's a fact, no matter who says it. Obama did not give a damn about wildlife. He did nothing to preserve endangered species. He didn't hate them, they were just unimportant to him. And why would they be? He's a city guy who grew up in Chicago. Why would he care or even know about grizzlies or wolves? He made moves that he was told by his advisors were "pro environment" but those advisors didn't give a damn about endangered species either.



+1! :D

Statistics: Posted by F55 — Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:42 am


Author: F55
Posted: March 14, 2017, 5:42 pm

Skip to toolbar