Wolves back in the news

mvivion said:

Note in the article that they reference the dissappearance of caribou on Unimak that I referred to earlier. Seems that the caribou came back from that one somehow, without aerial predator control. Wonder how they managed that on their own?

Click to expand...

I'm one of those wackos who subscribe to the Darwin theory.

As you said earlier, everything happens in cycles.
Cycle: Wolves kill MOST of their prey, and then they starve or move on, then the prey "come back" on their own (due to unprotected sex, I reckon) but it takes a LOOONG time, which is unacceptable to the humans who want to harvest them too.

Humans like everything to stay the same all the time... like jobs, weather, price of gas, etc. We don't like to eat nuts & berries when the meat is not available.

The people who think they can "manage" nature better than Ma Nature are just kidding themselves, however we can modify some things (like predator populations) to serve our needs/wants in the form of a more balanced cycle.

We are in direct competition (in some places) with predators. We could win the war & exterminate 'em, but our "live & let live good nature" dictates that we just keep things balanced a bit. Kinda like watering the plants we like, and spraying the ones we don't.

I also agree wholeheartedly with "locals" managing their own business, not some "shirt" at a distance telling us how things should be.

don d said:

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation position on the wolf introduction is that <Canadian>. Check it out on their website under news releases.

U.S. Government wildlife management needs to stay in DC and manage wildlife on the Capital Mall.

Click to expand...

That is the RMEF's position today but it wasn't their position 15 years ago when the wolf was introduced. They took a neutral wait and see attitude when many professionals were saying this is a disaster in the making. The Canadians thought we were absolute fools. Fifteen years of hindsite proves the Canadians right and the RMEF as being too little too late. Many, including myself, dropped out of the RMEF because they were too spineless to take a stand against the wolf introduction.

The introduction of the wolf to the Northern Rocky's has been the worst thing to ever happen to big game populations in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. And the bad news is they've spread to Oregon, Utah and Colorado now.

I haven't been to Unimak but I have been on the peninsula. We watched two wolves chase a prime bull caribou for a mile. He was able to keep ahead of them that long and then jumped into a lake with them nipping on his heels. The wolves skidded to a stop at the lake's edge while the caribou slowly swam to the far side. The two wolves watched him swim away for 20 minutes while we watched them at 200 yards. Oh how I wished for a wolf tag in my pocket. I had a rifle in my hands.

Stewart,

What part of what I posted is wrong? I merely stated what happened a number of years ago, which was pretty much verified by the article posted. I stated that the caribou population on Unimak literally disappeared over one winter. I was working out of Cold Bay at the time, and Unimak was part of the area I worked.

The rest of what I posted is simply a statement about the politics of the situation. The FWS has been repeatedly sued by protectionist groups when they have failed to conduct at least an EA on this very type of program (predator control). The current management is simply stating a fact: They can't permit predator control without doing at the very least an EA. That has come down from the courts, and there's no way around it. Since ADF&G doesn't own the land, they're not subject to those requirements.

I don't disagree that the Unimak caribou herd may be nearly gone. My only point was that it's happened before, and they've come back. Your statements suggest that they'll never come back, which is the typical sensationalism that ADF&G commonly puts out to the media.

So, you've camped and hunted on Unimak. Good for you. It is a beatiful place, and one of the most remarkable places I've ever visited and worked. I haven't been there for a long time, so I can't speak for what's going on out there now, with regard to animal populations. So, get over it--I'm not on a bar stool. I haven't suggested that your assessment of the current population is wrong, only that the past history of that population suggests a cyclical population. What you describe I witnessed myself in the mid to late 1970's. Then in the 90's, the population was booming.

As to the politics, this is one that's gone on since statehood, and you and I won't settle it.

I don't know anything about the Yellowstone wolf program. Wolves eat critters, though, so if you introduce them, they'll eat critters.

Don D,

It was the US Fish & Wildlife Service that eliminated the wolf in the Lower 48 many years ago. And it was them that did a LOT of wolf hunting in AK before statehood. I spent more than a few hours in the back of a SC shooting coyotes once upon a time, working for the agency.

Nowadays, however, ANYthing the government does is apt to draw the anti's legal reps out of the closet, and put a halt to nearly anything. Then the agency spends decades trying to get back to the job at hand: Management of the land and critters.

If you want a classic case, look at the case of the deer overpopulation on Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in NJ many years ago. FWS wanted to open a hunt on the deer. There were browse lines on ALL the trees, and no brush left, and the deer were obviously in bad shape. FWS put out a notice that they were going to open a special hunt on those deer.

One of the anti groups sued FWS, and shut down the hunt. Two years later, after spending a BUNCH of $$ on research to PROVE what was obvious to anyone--that there were too many deer for the habitat--the antis backed off and the hunt went forward.

Unfortunately, that routine is a fact of life for land managers these days. The antis will sue you if you do something and they'll sue you if you do nothing.

Bottom line, though--If the federal government DOESN'T do an EA on a predator control program on federal lands, they WILL be sued, especially if that predator is the wolf.

I have no beef with predator control programs that are well documented and backed by science. I don't see any problems with killing wolves, and if you're going to kill any animal, I'd sooner see them shot than trapped.

But, the anti's are still out there, and they have LOTS of well paid legal types, just waiting to file an injunction.

MTV

Like I said, go see it yourself. Let me know when you get back. I may consider your opinion more worthy and may take up the discussion with you. Until then? I have much better things to do.

Stewart

A new high court ruling concerning Alaska predator management.....

http://alaskadispatch.com/voices/me...trol-is-constitutional-says-states-high-court

Stewart,

I thought you had better things to do... 8)

A news flash: The Alaska Supreme Court has NO SAY whatever over what happens on federally owned lands.

I personally agree with this court's decision, frankly. But, on Unimak, there is a little problem: Who (humans, that is), precisely, are you managing the caribou for? There is one tiny village on Unimak, and frankly, they don't get out on the island much. And, as for folks like yourself, I'd bet you could count the number of caribou hunters who hunt Unimak in a year on the fingers of both hands.

So, that raises a couple questions:

1) is this the best place to spend many thousands of the State's precious wildlife managment dollars??

2) If indeed number 1) above is true, what's stopping ADF&G from conducting an EA for this purpose?? They know what the rules are on federal lands, and the AK Supreme Court doesn't take precedence over the US Supreme Court on the subject of environmental policy. So, what's the hold up?? In fact, there HAVE been EA's successfully implemented in Alaska on federal land. It can and has been done. Why doesn't ADF&G go through the process?

I suspect number 1 may be the answer to number 2. It would be hard to argue that it's wise to spend tens of thousands of dollars to kill seven wolves, so that a few rich folks could fly out there and hunt a caribou or two.

MTV

Nothing to do with Unimak. The feds will f that up like they're f'ing everything else in the country up. Actually, they already have. The federal management model is nothing to brag about from what I've seen. In this case I linked an important decision for a few Alaskans to read about. This is where we live. It matters to us.

SB

While not entirely in the same mode that all us infleunce is bad, I must say that at some point the agencies have to grow a pair, do the right thing and tell the courts to kiss off.

We as a people need to get rid of the judges that keep allowing these injunctions for any little thing :evil: :evil:

The court, when finding against the PETA folks, need to charge them a large sum of $$$$ to pay for the defendants attorny and court time; call it a penalty for their continued obstructions in people's lives...


And another thing...

The STATE owns the animals. They should do their job, and let the USFW folks give them a tresspass citation The state owns wildlife. We need less Kalifornia and Kenya managment...

Sorry MTV, far to many of the US employees take their job as an acting GOD position.

Seems that if the USFW would listen to locals, things would be easier... montana wolves are a prime example.

Well, here we go on the state vs feds thing again. Whatever.

The point is that much of the land that Alaskans hunt, fish and recreate on is federally managed. The good news is that most of that land is still open to Alaskans and Outsiders to hunt, fish and recreate on.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on what camp you choose to park in, the court system and the legislature dictate a LOT of what happens on government owned land, whether it be state owned or federally owned.

But the point is, the rules are quite clear. If you want to conduct predator control on federal lands, an EA is going to be required. That wasn't a rule that was put in place by FWS. It was handed down by YOUR elected representatives in Congress. Believe you me, I didn't like that rule any better than many others in Alaska and elsewhere. Try working one of those deals when you're the guy who has to WRITE the dang thing.

Alaska is a great state, and I spent many great years there, for which I have many fond memories, and I am eternally grateful for the time I was able to spend in Alaska and the experiences I encountered there. I love the state dearly.

I hope that Alaskans and others are able to hunt and fish and recreate on federally owned land in Alaska for many years to come, just as folks do in this part of the world.

MTV

Well, here we go on the state vs feds thing again. Whatever.

The point is that much of the land that Alaskans hunt, fish and recreate on is federally managed. The good news is that most of that land is still open to Alaskans and Outsiders to hunt, fish and recreate on.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on what camp you choose to park in, the court system and the legislature dictate a LOT of what happens on government owned land, whether it be state owned or federally owned.

But the point is, the rules are quite clear. If you want to conduct predator control on federal lands, an EA is going to be required. That wasn't a rule that was put in place by FWS. It was handed down by YOUR elected representatives in Congress. Believe you me, I didn't like that rule any better than many others in Alaska and elsewhere. Try working one of those deals when you're the guy who has to WRITE the dang thing.

Alaska is a great state, and I spent many great years there, for which I have many fond memories, and I am eternally grateful for the time I was able to spend in Alaska and the experiences I encountered there. I love the state dearly.

I hope that Alaskans and others are able to hunt and fish and recreate on federally owned land in Alaska for many years to come, just as folks do in this part of the world.

MTV

mvivion said:

Well, here we go on the state vs feds thing again. Whatever.

The point is that much of the land that Alaskans hunt, fish and recreate on is federally managed. The good news is that most of that land is still open to Alaskans and Outsiders to hunt, fish and recreate on.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on what camp you choose to park in, the court system and the legislature dictate a LOT of what happens on government owned land, whether it be state owned or federally owned.

But the point is, the rules are quite clear. If you want to conduct predator control on federal lands, an EA is going to be required. That wasn't a rule that was put in place by FWS. It was handed down by YOUR elected representatives in Congress. Believe you me, I didn't like that rule any better than many others in Alaska and elsewhere. Try working one of those deals when you're the guy who has to WRITE the dang thing.

Alaska is a great state, and I spent many great years there, for which I have many fond memories, and I am eternally grateful for the time I was able to spend in Alaska and the experiences I encountered there. I love the state dearly.

I hope that Alaskans and others are able to hunt and fish and recreate on federally owned land in Alaska for many years to come, just as folks do in this part of the world.

MTV

Click to expand...

MTV,

I think we do agree. You come from the 'been there done that', I come from the 'am tired of the BS'. Yes, it is a state vs fed, but really, it is an actual user vs idiots down south swayed by media...

I wonder how much of these that the elected from Alaska agreed with...

that idiot Knowles let the lawsuit go instead of fighting the managment of fish and game...

Any chance you could take over as King for a day and get it strait?

Judge Molloy in Missoula put the delisted wolf in Montana and Idaho back on the endangered species list two days ago. The environmentalists agrued that Wyoming wolves, that were still listed because they were considered vermin and US FWS didn't like that, couldn't be separated as a population from Montana and Idaho wolves. He ignored everything but that one point. And so now the good people of Montana and Idaho have lost their management tool - sport hunting of wolves - because of an activist federal judge in Missoula.

Federal judges are appointed for life. All we can do is not vote for the type of politicians that appoint people like Molloy. In my opinion and that of most 'normal' people is the feds need to stay out of the state's business. They create far more problems than they solve.

spinner2 said:

the feds need to stay out of the state's business. They create far more problems than they solve.

Click to expand...

The federal government demonstrates on a daily basis that they have no concern for borders or boundaries. Your statement is a wise one.

Stewart

spinner2 said:

Judge Molloy in Missoula put the delisted wolf in Montana and Idaho back on the endangered species list two days ago. The environmentalists agrued that Wyoming wolves, that were still listed because they were considered vermin and US FWS didn't like that, couldn't be separated as a population from Montana and Idaho wolves. He ignored everything but that one point. And so now the good people of Montana and Idaho have lost their management tool - sport hunting of wolves - because of an activist federal judge in Missoula.

Federal judges are appointed for life. All we can do is not vote for the type of politicians that appoint people like Molloy. In my opinion and that of most 'normal' people is the feds need to stay out of the state's business. They create far more problems than they solve.

Click to expand...

For once I agree with the Judge. Are they endangered or aren't they. Not including Wyoming on the delisting was wrong and F&W didn't like Wyomings way of doing things. Maybe now they will get their Arse in gear and delist them everywhere.

wolves

Brian,, Buddy,,,,,,,,you been breathing way to much grasshopper spray! Wolves are Vermin when there are eating your pay check, Wyoming is the only state with the balls to stand up to the feds and manage them like we were all promised. They will most likely never win but at least they are fighting. Molloy is another example of a activist liberal judge legislating from the bench.

Word @ the Prairie County Fair today was they have been seeing wolves south of Terry and on B sheep Mtn.

Steve can you get those green loads in 00 ?

dave

Re: wolves

ag-pilot said:

Steve can you get those green loads in 00 ?

dave

Click to expand...

You bet! I will put some in my pocket just in case..

S2D said:

spinner2 said:

Judge Molloy in Missoula put the delisted wolf in Montana and Idaho back on the endangered species list two days ago. The environmentalists agrued that Wyoming wolves, that were still listed because they were considered vermin and US FWS didn't like that, couldn't be separated as a population from Montana and Idaho wolves. He ignored everything but that one point. And so now the good people of Montana and Idaho have lost their management tool - sport hunting of wolves - because of an activist federal judge in Missoula.

Federal judges are appointed for life. All we can do is not vote for the type of politicians that appoint people like Molloy. In my opinion and that of most 'normal' people is the feds need to stay out of the state's business. They create far more problems than they solve.

Click to expand...

For once I agree with the Judge. Are they endangered or aren't they. Not including Wyoming on the delisting was wrong and F&W didn't like Wyomings way of doing things. Maybe now they will get their Arse in gear and delist them everywhere.

Click to expand...

Brian, You're thinking just like an activist judge now. If the question is are the wolves endangered the answer is no. All of the quotas on numbers of breeding pairs, distribution, etc. were met years ago. And those numbers have been far surpassed since then while the feds managed them. They aren't endangered. But what is becoming very endangered are the deer and elk herds the wovles are preying on while the environmentalists play lawyer games delaying the delisting. And their trump card is Molloy. He'll rubber stamp whatever they want.

Last winter, when wolves were under state control and could be shot if they were harrassing livestock, many were killed by ranchers. My neighbor killed two during calving season. Another neighbor had a horse attacked within 100 yards of their house. Now that wolves are listed again they'll have to call the feds who will show up in a day or two.

I agree with ag-pilot. Wolves are varmints - just like coyotes. Political borders don't change that.

wolves

delete

I had dinner with an old friend the other day whose father started a town on Lake Clark and he made a GREAT Point which he made to the Director of Parks in AK:

If the US F&WS, US Park Service, US Forest Service (ad nauseum) have in place and enforce policies that a) endanger the delicate balance of wildlife in their management areas, b) cause hunting to cease because of mis-management of wildlife and consequently lose the economic benefit locally and nationwide of those "rich people" hunting in those areas; c) continue to espouse liberal policies that affect the strength of the State and the Nation as a whole...

Then these Agencies in effect are NOT even fulfilling their own Promises and obligation to "Keep and Protect" these Parks and Federally managed lands "in Perpetuity"--That's FOREVER folks.

So do you think that China, or some other large Country will honor our Parks and Federal Lands when they take over our country because our Federal Government is broke, over-extended, and in-debt--to these VERY countries...and yet the polices continue to suck money into programs and useless EA studies that often were written solely to line the pockets of either politicians OR their constituents. I've a friend that is going for two weeks all over the state of Alaska, with 3 well paid Federal bioligists, in a chartered DeHavilland Beaver that will fly all over the State of Alaska spending thousands of Federal (borrowed) dollars on...a BUG SURVEY.

Think I'm way out there? The USA is borrowing 5 BILLION dollars A DAY, just to keep the wheels turning...borrowing from WHOM?

Clear and intentional mis-management of the wolf populations on a small insignifcant island in the Bering sea is a symptom of a much greater problem; and their obligation to see these lands continue "In Perpetuity" is becoming a quite unclear task.

We live here in Alaska as SB said, and of course, seeing lands being mis-managed by a screwed up mega-entity in DC hurts us where it hurts most--at Home.

RB

I've been ignoring this thread for a while. It pisses me off. The people who have their own opinions about this subject that really don't have a clue about it and for the most part does not affect them. The woods for me growing up was our Safeway. I'm an Alaskan native, born and raised in the bush. Been fortunate enough to grow up in the back of a cub. As a kid, I used to count moose going from one place to another (it was a fact of life, a given).It was the days of aireal wolf hunting. Today is another story, lucky to see a moose. I flew 250 miles today across interior Alaska. I seen 9 bears and about 8 (all cows) moose and 6 wolves. I know we can't kill and exterminate the wolves. They eat the dogs in our villages when they are hungry. They aren't dumb. Go try out the life before you knock it. You will, Guaranteed have a different perspective about it.

Re: wolves

ag-pilot said:

Brian,, Buddy,,,,,,,,you been breathing way to much grasshopper spray! Wolves are Vermin when there are eating your pay check, Wyoming is the only state with the balls to stand up to the feds and manage them like we were all promised. They will most likely never win but at least they are fighting. Molloy is another example of a activist liberal judge legislating from the bench.

Word @ the Prairie County Fair today was they have been seeing wolves south of Terry and on B sheep Mtn.

Steve can you get those green loads in 00 ?

dave

Click to expand...

Exactly my point, Wyoming should have never been excluded from the delisting. And that is exactly why the Judge ruled that way. Now maybe the feds will get off their arse and delist them properly in all three states.

By the way, I should inform a lot of you. Back in the day, the natives starved. They had to work for what they got. There was no Obama care back then. It wasn't unusual to follow a set of moose tracks for a week on snowshoes. It was a tough life, it changed when the cub came into the picture. My grandpa told me so, which is a lot more than most can say. He said a lot of people came into the country that read a lot of books about nature and predators, which made them experts. They were at least decade behind everyone else that lived the life. A lot of people think nature balances things out. Not so! I've killed a lot of wolves with trash in their guts. Metal cans and all. They killed for enjoyment when not for necessity. They will eat your dog, no second thought about it. It is kind of like you killing an ape cause your hungry and eating it. Think about it.

Re: wolves

S2D said:

Exactly my point, Wyoming should have never been excluded from the delisting. And that is exactly why the Judge ruled that way. Now maybe the feds will get off their arse and delist them properly in all three states.

Click to expand...

But what about those of us that aren't near Wyoming? What the hell do ya think that does to us while the wolf is back on the list? The way they're going about it is wrong! They're punishing us for someone elses actions again! While the Feds and greenies are wasting money, we're getting slammed.
John

Re: wolves

Hardtailjohn said:

S2D said:

Exactly my point, Wyoming should have never been excluded from the delisting. And that is exactly why the Judge ruled that way. Now maybe the feds will get off their arse and delist them properly in all three states.

Click to expand...

But what about those of us that aren't near Wyoming? What the hell do ya think that does to us while the wolf is back on the list? The way they're going about it is wrong! They're punishing us for someone elses actions again! While the Feds and greenies are wasting money, we're getting slammed.
John

Click to expand...

don't get me wrong, I'm not for relisting them, I'm just saying the Judge looked at it and said what they did in Wyoming was political, so get their $hit in gear and get it straightened out.

call up the feds and scream at them for not delisting them in Wyoming like they should have done all along.

Re: wolves

S2D said:

don't get me wrong, I'm not for relisting them, I'm just saying the Judge looked at it and said what they did in Wyoming was political, so get their $hit in gear and get it straightened out.

Click to expand...

Brian, I understand your point of view. But I don't agree on who is being political. Wyoming was being practical not political. The environmentalists are the political ones. Wolves are a huge cash cow for them. They make millions writing sad letters to people in the cities who think the wolf is being persecuted by hunting and livestock interests. Had the environmentalists not brought this suit to Molloy's court the wolf would be off the list today.

Bottom line is that screaming at or to the Feds doesn't keep the wolves from killing our cattle (not to mention the wildlife and dogs, etc.). This is the reason I'm saying they're going about it wrong. We've been battling them all year, with them near enough to shoot from our front room. Now we get to sit and watch instead of defend our stock. Sounds like fun, huh? F&G's hands are tied, they can't help.... Nope, Molloy's ruling wasn't a smart one at all.... and anyone that says it was, isn't seeing the whole picture.
Call a fed to come take care of a wolf, or even investigate a "kill" so that we can do something about it (eventually) and see how fast things roll....
These wolves here don't have one damned thing to do with the ones in Wyoming...why base one on the other?
John

from my limited wildlife managment knowledge, critters like the wolf move around a bit...

A population that is listed as endangered, is endangered. Now if you have a critter endangered in Africa, but plentiful here, maybe you can get away with it not being listed over here, but it being listed there...

But if in a day you can drive between one spot that has them things listed as endangered, and another spot that has a shoot to kill order, you are going to have problems with the legal mumbo jumbo of the Endangered Species Act. The environmentalists will win every time.

Now, sensible folks would have gone to Wyoming and insisted that the stupid critters be delisted there, and problems solved, (what Brian has been saying). But in our "protect the environment" attitude of the green courts, the solution worked well for them to just re list them.


I suggest, if you really want to fight this, is to get the lobby working to delist them over all the states at one time. Or, better yet, box a few up and send them to Auntie Nancy in DC for pets :lol:

Maby the Whitehouse has room for another puppy


Please do not take the above as an opinion that it is the best for all what has happened. Just an explaination of what I see as another well played manuver by the green side to politicaly hamstring the wildlife managment folks.

I kinda like the policy of "Dont ask dont tell".. Washington uses that policy in the military... if its good enough for them, its good enough for us...

HardtailJohn... see you this winter. 8)

My Montana Friends to the North:

It is unfortunate that Molloy rescended prior decisions and put ID and MT wolves back on the ES list and stopped your hunting and management of the viscous predator. I have been watching this thread closely and have been reluctant to weigh in but couldn't hold back any longer. I stand by my home state of WY and our decesion to not cave into the Feds pressure. Our proposed wolf management plan was sound scientific wildlife management where the wolf had trophy status in the NW corner of our state and you needed a limit quota license to hunt and population surveyed and managed by the wildlife biologists. The rest of the state, the wolf was classified as a predator and could be shot on sight, with out a license which in turn is protecting our way of life and our personal property be it poodles, cattle, sheep, etc. In summary, I stand by our Governor and State in not bowing to the Feds and agreeing to manage the wolves as the Feds see fit. We will manage the wolves as we see fit. We may lose a battle or two but hopefully when it is all said and done we have won the war. I sure hope you guys aren't blaming us for this recent decesion by a federal judge in Missoula who needs to quit listening to the animal rights people and start lisening to the people who live in the west and are trying to make a living at it.

Jack

aktango58 said:

Now, sensible folks would have ....

Click to expand...

Now, Geo, where the hell ya gonna find one of those in a gov't office?? HA!!

My observation:
It is apparent that all common sense flies right out the window once a politician gets past the municipal level. Instead of doing what makes sense, or for the good of the majority, they do what the 'squeaky wheel' groups want to hear/see.

It's all about getting (re) elected, covering your A$$, and then walking away to a comfy retirement without a real care what happens after your term. Have we seen this before? (A time or two)

[Loud profanity!]