Share this Post:

unEARTHED. The Earthjustice Blog

Congress v. Endangered Species - Wolves Up For A Vote


    SIGN-UP for our latest news and action alerts:
   Please leave this field empty

Facebook Fans

Related Blog Entries

by Raviya Ismail:
Anti-Environment Foot Comes Down In Congress

It’s been a harrowing past few weeks (to say the least). The first jolt came Feb. 19, when House leaders approved a spending plan that slashed a...

by Liz Judge:
Congress v. The Environment: The House Is On Fire

As I write this, members of the House of Representatives continue to debate and move their way through votes on hundreds of amendments to the chamber'...

by Kari Birdseye:
Open Season in Wyoming Threatens Wolf Recovery

In Wyoming, wolves that were federally protected on Sept. 30 became legal vermin overnight—subject to being shot on sight in approximately 90 pe...

Earthjustice on Twitter

View Marty Hayden's blog posts
17 March 2011, 12:09 PM
At any time, Congress could remove species from endangered list

<Editor's Note: Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen has released a statement about the organization's continuing efforts to protect the gray wolf.>

The fate of gray wolves—and of the Endangered Species Act itself—may be voted on at any time in the climax of an historic struggle in Congress over budgeting and political philosophy.

Congress took its first stab at approving a full fiscal year 2011 budget on Feb. 19, and unfortunately the House GOP majority and some Democrats proposed slashing billions in public funding and eliminated safeguards for our air, water and wildlife, as well as two dozen anti-environmental policy provisions (riders).

The Senate alternative, unveiled March 4, excluded all of the these anti-environmental riders except one: a rider ordering the Interior Secretary to reinstate a court-overturned 2009 rule. The rule delisted wolves within portions of the northern Rockies, including Montana, Idaho and portions of Utah, Oregon and Washington. It insulated that rule from court review. If enacted, this would be the first time in the ESA’s history that Congress has legislatively delisted a species.

However, on March 9 the Senate rejected both proposals to fund the federal government for the remainder of FY2011. For now, the wolf has been granted a temporary reprieve, but the inclusion of even one anti-environmental rider in a bill eventually passed by the Senate would greatly complicate negotiations for both them and the White House when facing the revolutionaries of the House with their basket full of harmful provisions.

For years, Earthjustice has gone to court to ensure that wolves can recover from the brink of extinction in the northern Rocky Mountains.

Wolves in the lower-48 states were essentially wiped out a few decades ago and have made a slow comeback in the northern Rocky Mountains after reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s. There are now just over 1,600 gray wolves in this region, but the proposed delisting would allow the Rocky Mountain states to maintain at most 300 to 450 wolves—far short of the 2,000 to 3,000 number needed for a sustainable, fully recovered population.

Earthjustice and other conservation groups are concerned because when Congress enacted the law in 1973, it specifically stated that delisting decisions are to be made by wildlife experts in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service—not by politicians.

The very idea that congressional leaders are targeting the gray wolf sets an alarming precedent and could spell disaster for other “politically unpopular” animals—grizzly bears, salmon and polar bears among them.

Although the short-term spending bills that are keeping the government running for now are devoid of anti-environmental policy riders, the fight to protect our air, water, and treasured wildlife is not over. The current resolution expires April 8, so we can expect another round of attacks in the imminent future.

<EDITOR'S NOTE: Some comments generated by this blog item have been personal and derogatory. Please tone down the personal attacks or we will start removing offensive comments. Please be respectful. Thank You, the editors>

It is way too premature to consider delisting wolves. The simple numbers of elk & deer in comparison with predators such as cougars and wolves tell the whole story. The elk and deer numbers are artificially inflated because of management of them for sport and wildlife agency revenues. Deer and elk have been and continue to be so abundant that they are destroying biodiversity of the whole eco system. I am a hunter and have spent 6 decades enjoying hunting deer and elk and still do, but I admit that it has become easy enough to bag deer and elk that it may no longer be hunting. At least not like I remember hunting 50 years ago. Hunters that expect this abundance of good ole days of hunting to continue are remiss to the realization that our wildlife and forests are in danger of collapsing around us as we consider re-instating policies and attitudes that nearly drove cougars and wolves extinct over 100 years ago. I see in these posts that some people do not get outdoors much but some that are not observant or have been here long enough to comprehend how seeming subtle changes have snowballed into dramatic changes in biodiversity. I recommend a documentary "Lords of Nature" for some education on the subject. The film has run on PBS in some areas but has not for most of the country. You may read about it or get a DVD at: http://www.lordsofnature.org/

the sheer depths of depravity and greed of demons and subhumans involved in annihilating a species is unimaginable. The earth is collapsing and dying under the weight of 7 billion overpopulated humans pillaging and polluting the earth, slaughtering its species and wiping out the very support ladders of life. The only saving grace is that there may be millions of other unspoiled planets out there which savage humanity will never be able to reach and destroy with their primitive technologies before they finally commit suicide and take the planet with them.

The fossil record shows many forms of life that came and went ages before humans were on the planet. No doubt it is the way of the world and it will continue to be that way long after we are gone.

As passionate as some feel about wolves, the wolves do thrive in areas far from modern civilization. The land has changed significantly in the last 200 years, it is daydreaming to think that we can restore the land to ways of that time or that wolves can survive here as they did in that era. More importantly though, it is unkind to bring this burden on our neighbors and the wolves for that matter, a renewed loathing. When wolves reach the urban areas and begin to cause problems there, public opinion will turn on both the radical and conservative conservation movements.

It will be best for all interests to release management of wolves to the states and move on to more urgent issues such as habitat loss to development.

It is so sad how humans have destroyed thousands of species and still make excuses for this behavior, somehow thinking it is justified due to our "superiority". I signed the petition and am hoping somebody with an ounce of decency does something.

If it is wildlife, Salazar kills. He was the worst pick for Secretary of Interior. He had a long history of hate for wolves...and wild horses. Two of the many wildlife the Dept.Of Interior is designed to protect. The wild horses are being brutally rounded-up by helicopter chase in unprecedented numbers verging on extinction. Now we can say goodbye to the wolves again as the slaughter begins. Salaar does as Salazar wants. It is said he has an independent streak. I call it corruption. RANCHER Salazar talks the talk, but the walk is his way or no way.

I am of the opinion that the wolf groups have played their cards wrong. By trying to force too many wolves into the states and preventing reasonable management, greater numbers of citizens are rejecting wolves in general and mistrust of environmental groups has exploded. People are now demanding that wolves are removed from the ESA entirely. I used to think that we could make this work, but now I know better and support total delisting because I now know the people can not trust environmental groups. Here's the thing you have miscalculated, agriculture and recreation make this country run, wolves have now proven themselves detrimental to both. You would have been far better off to stick to the agreement.

I believe that gray wolves have just as much a right as any other animal on the endangered species list as any other to remain on the list.
Humans are not the most important animal on the planet, no one group or species is more important than another. However, if we are lucky enough to be the most evolved creatures, our job should be to protect those creatures who live at our mercy in the fairest way possible. The ESA allows us to help those creatures who cannot speak for themselves.

Thank you EarthJustice, One of my favorite riding areas was closed due to Elk winter feeding. About 6 years ago, they found all of the new born elk dead, after the snow melted, and of course it was blamed on some virus. But, everyone knew that wasn't so. Then the elk stopped wintering there, and moved down towards the major valley. The few that where left, where filmed being chased out onto thin ice at the reservoir by wolves, and they grouped up like they always do, and went for a swim in sub zero temperatures. They all died, couldn't get out of the ice hole they where in. So, now they are talking about reopening the area to snowmobiling, since no elk remain in the winter. Hurray, I can't thank you guys enough, we get our area back. But, I do feel sorry for the Elk. If you do a search for Anderson Ranch Reservoir in Idaho, you'll find the pictures. You'll have to go many pages in, people have pushed the story way down google's search results.

YIPEE! More space for lazy idiotic noisy, polluting, smowmobilies to ride. BTW it is not your area, moron.

The need in a healthy ecosystem for the top predators cannot be overstated. The wolf and the polar bear instinctively scare us, unless we overcome our fear to recognize the whole picture. The whole picture is you, Earthjustice, are my greatest heroes. You speak for the voiceless creatures of nature. You help to keep the web of life intact. Apparently a lot of your bloggers, have forgotten that every breath they take and every bite they eat depends on a functioning ecosystem. Whenever one piece of the web is lost, it is unclear if the web will collapse. But the web can only sustain so much loss before it does collapse. Thank you Earthjustice for working tirelessly for creatures and for us.

I would just like to add; Thank you earthjustice for your help to destroy our once healthy elk and moose population here in the west and mid-west. It has done wonders for our food source and economies. Once again,thank you from the bottom of my heart. I don't know how we could possible exist without you.You are the greatest ever!

I am an African American female and I used to love and support wolves. I was hiking last Summer inthe Clearwater national Forest in Idaho. I saw a pack of wolves attack a moose baby ( calf) and tear out its intestines and leave it ther eto die. It was crying an dthe mother moose was trying to chase away the wolves. They just left it. My husband and I found 3 elk with their stomachs eaten out and left to rot. I talked to teh wild life guy there and he informed that most wolves just kill for pleasure and do not eat what they kill. What an evil animal.

But I am betting most of you have never hiked outside a city park or zoo.

We may not like nature sometimes, but it is the way it is. The wolf is a part of the cycle of life, it does not make it evil, it's an animal. What you didn't see was the other scavanger animals that ate the kill after the wolves left it or how the decomposition of the corpse fed the earth, making the soil more fertile, so trees and other greenery could grow. My brother was attacked by a cougar while out hiking, luckily his dog was there and saved his life, but does that mean we should go out and wipe it from the face of the earth? I'm from the Northwest and grew up hiking in the forests there. Out there, we're all just animals and you're either prey or a predator. No offense, but you need to get a grip.

Wolves eat other animals. Do you understand? The way a predator may eat an animal may not be humane to us humans, but it's perfectly natural. Wolves have been killing this way for thousands of years. Lions also kill in a inhumane way. Does that make them bad because of the way they kill? How do you want a wild animal to kill when all it has is its teeth? Some of you people are so far away from reality, it's not even funny.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I recently spoke in great lengths with a Idaho Fish and Game officer about the massive damage wolves are dealing to the elk in the Clearwater region. He is assigned to the Lolo zone of that area. He informed me that the once 17,000 or so elk in that area have been reduced to under 1,500. Wolves are by far the number one cause of the decline and certainly the reason recovery is impossable. If you listen to the "Environmentalist" they will tell you it was "habitat loss" or "global warming." The elk are simple not reproducing due to the constant harassment of the way overpopulated Non-Native and Non-Endangered Canadian Gray Wolves. The average age of the cows in this area is 8-10 years old. An age when they begin to no longer come into heat. Those cows who do manage to come into heat and breed do so in vain because the calf they give birth to will almost certainly die by the mouth of wolves before it reaches the age of one years old. The same story goes for the moose.
Sadly, this is music to the ears of those who are responsible for this criminal act. The fact that they continue to fight to keep this trend going gives much credence. The recent deal they made with the department of interior and the USFWS to allow hunting of wolves in Idaho and Montana isn't fooling anyone. Its to little to late. The damage is done. This is simply a feeble attempt to stop s.249 and h.r.509 and continue spreading the destruction of wolves to every corner of the lower 48. I got news for the Enviro Nostra, its not going to work. Believe me when I tell you the word is way out and we the people are not going to stand for it.
In the beginning of this "Introduction" most everyone held an open mind towards it. It wasn't until the self proclaimed "environmentalist" started moving the goal line (not holding up their end of the deal) and reviling their real agenda to destroy our wild ungulates and livestock and put an end to hunting and ranching (hence the Wildlands Project) that we had a problem. If only common sense would have applied...but it didn't and here we are. Face it, your days of exploiting the Endangered Species Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act are limited. Look on the bright side, you all got filthy stinking rich and you have the hard working American taxpayers to thank for it.

If the elk population is declining so badly, then why are people still allowed to hunt it all over Oregon and Washington? Hmmm, something to think about.

The wolves are just arriving in Washington and Oregon. These two states have not yet been subject to the abuses of the criminal Non-Essential" and "experimental" "reintroduction" like Idaho,Montana,Wyoming and several Mid-Western States. Hmmm,something to think about.

With that said, the wolves are not to blame. They are very simply just being Wolves.Bottom line is their numbers simply need to be regulated to insure a balance between man and wild,with both being part of nature.

Wolves eating elk is a criminal act? wow, you people are much nuttier than I originally thought. Typical westerner who thinks they have a clue about nature when infact they don't have a clue in the world. Do you know how uninformed you sound? Wolves eating elk is a criminal act? Wolves have been eating and feasting on elk for thousands upon thousands of years. This isn't criminal, it's NATURAL. If you knew anything about nature and natural history, you would be able to comprehend this.

Really,is that the best you have got? Its laughable...but to clear up your play on words the criminal act has been the "reintroduction" in its entirety...you will be reading about it in the papers as the truth prevails. There is currently plenty of literature available about it...but people that have drank the cool-aid tend to avoid it...it creates confusion in their brainwashed minds.

You people are really nuts. Wolves eating elk is not a criminal act. I know you think so in your delusional and paranoid mind. Wolf reintroduction was not criminal either. Wolves were brought back because they were wiped out and they will continue to eat elk and deer like they are supposed to and there is nothing you are going to do to stop that. Continue on with your paranoia how you think wolves eating elk is a criminal act.

Sorry anon but yours typical stereotyping has grown transparent. Non-native and Non-endangered Canadian Gray Wolves were introduced under a final agreement that the Three Western States would each maintain 15 breading pairs or 150 wolves whichever was greater. That goal was accomplished MANY years ago yet still the "environmental" groups fight to stop management of numbers which now more than exceed the agreed upon numbers by 10X. Hence the massive destruction of ungulates in said areas.

This isn't about wolves being bad, this is about A deal gone bad and a large sector of this nations population being treated in a manor that violates the constitution of the United States. I guess you would have to live it to understand it.

First off, they are native. Biologists and experts alike both agree that gray wolves from Canada were migrating into idaho for years. The reason why wolf reintroduction happened is because people like you wiped the wolves out back in the 30s. You are to blame for wolf reintroduction happening. If your idiotic forefathers didn't wipe wolves out, wolf reintroduction wouldn't have needed to be done. You brought this problem on yourself. Live with it or move to a state with no wolves. Wolves have a right to exist and exist they will.

# It's the circle of life #

# and it moves us all#

It happens but also it lowers the moose population and the elk population so if those elk and moose didn't survive, it wasn't in the cards for them. natural selection.

I love wolves!!!!!!!!!!!! oh wait a minute nope I'm sure of it I hate them.........

reloading my guns right now.................

How bout some of you that appose the hunting of these wolves go for a hike, without a gun in the National Forests of Idaho and Montana..

I mean get of your subaru and hike 10 miles into the wildernes without a weapon. I bet you have a different perspective of these "LOVELY CREATURES".... They are so nice, we should save everyone of them.......NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live in Minnesota and we have a large and healthy wolf population in the lower 48. There have been problems with farmers blaming livestock loss on the wolf and they are compensated(if they can prove it) if they have a loss of life with their farm animals. My relatives (who are farmers) hate the wolves and would love to see them and all predator wildlife eradicated. They live 'up north' and our relationship can be very contentious when I bring up any proposed 'bounty' on wolves that I oppose.

The wolf issue is a symptom. Our society as we know it, is being changed by environmental laws and regulations. What we are seeing is a brain washing of our kids and ourselves.

The "mystic wolf" is an example of a new pagan religion called Gaia.
Gaia worship is at the very heart of today's environmental policy.

The Endangered Species Act, The United Nation's Biodiversity Treaty and the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development are all offspring of the Gaia hypothesis of saving "Mother Earth".

This religious movement, with cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as former Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations.

Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" is just one of many books that unabashedly proclaims the deity of Earth and blames the falling away from this Pagan God on the environmentally unfriendly followers of Jesus Christ.

The United Nations has been extremely successful in infusing the "Green Religion" into an international governmental body that has an increasing affect and control over all of our lives. The evidence of this is seen in the goals of Agenda 21. Google Agenda 21 also. This isn't hype..this is reality. Thank you for reading my point of view.

Really? I have been an enviromentalist since the mid-80's...how come I have not heard of this Gaia religon? Last I knew, I was a Christian.

Life is about perspective, and every issue worth debating is, at its core, symptomatic of a shift in consciousness. We are all believers who attest to something, and worship is many things to many people. There are those who revere the beauty of a sunset as a sacred experience, while others merely see the end of day, and some may not even notice at all. None are wrong, yet each view it from a different perspective. Why must caring about the vitality of our planet, protecting imperiled wildlife and our finite resources be viewed as cult-like behavior? We are all tenets of the Earth, why would we want to destroy our home?

Our Earth is very much alive...ever changing and evolving. It is only within an ego-centric view that it is perceived Earth would de-exist without our human presence should we no longer have the ability to survive.

Remember, once it was thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. It is an imperative to keep an open mind.

THe above comment on religious basis clearly exemplifies the problem for which website moderators placed the acution at the end of the article.

Such comments as this one are spurious, intentionally false, intended to appeal in a pseudo-religious fashiobn to thoughtless emotions, and should clearly be removed as per your caution.
Thank you.

Wolves are highly symbolic animals, regardless of perspective. Very few animals incite such raw emotion since wolves cross over not just the physical boundaries of states, but also the social, political, and cultural divisions represented within each. The controversy goes far beyond merely wolves themselves...to the very core of our individual beliefs.

Ultimately, if you care enough about anything, you will accept it and want to protect it. If you don't...then the topic is moot. Unfortunately, wolves have always been caught up within our human grappling between conscience and ego, while subject to the whims of casual malice...even with protections.

We don't see things as they are...we see things as we are. There are givers and takers. The selfless and selfish. "Tree huggers" are accused of being too emotional, or out of touch with reality. While those who loathe the wolf, for whatever reason, will accept nothing but eradication. We are all passionate and frustrated, perhaps we can appreciate in another, that which does NOT divide us.

I appreciate the wolf's presence within the landscape and support his recovery. I also support reasonable and responsible wolf management. It would be fool hearty to de-list any species by rider, de-listing demands open and honest debate involving all representative perspectives. Leaving it up to political mandate opens the proverbial can of worms which will

Predators are legendary and myriad. Although viewed as "inhumane," nature's balance between predator and prey is rife with all the unpleasantries of brutality and death, not for the feint of heart, yet a reality all too true. But without the regenerative cycle, sustainability and rebirth would not be possible. One member of a species dies to ensure the survival of another. Have we been any less "barbaric" in our methods as civilized beings...?

http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/0610_2004_inhu...

What is of paramount concern to me is the following dialogue within a web site I discovered while researching the ESA. It demonstrates the arrogant quest for the "exact right language" in de-listing the wolf. Boasts of keeping notes and writing a book....maybe even a Harvard case study about how to do what most say can't be done. ( wolf de-listing), even a comment alluding to de-listing hawks next.

http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thread.cfm?threadid=244267&Messages=...

Is this the kind of mentality we want to encourage or the behavior we want to reward or set in motion...? If so, then which species will be singled out next...and for whom...?

It is my sincere belief that true hunters would not feel threatened by the wolf's presence and real men would value his wisdom...as did our hunter/gather ancestors.

For all of our human intellect and capacity for potential good, it comes down to this: we are all endangered, whether whale, or man, or wolf, although mankind appears too foolish to realize it.

I made an earlier comment near the start of this blog. It had to do with the bad strategic legal move of Earthjustice to focus on objecting to the USFWS delisting in ID and MT, while keeping wolves listed in WY for good reason (Montana Federal District Court Judge Molloy ruled you cannot break up a DPS. All wolves have to be delisted together or not at all.) A couple of folks took a shot at me for that post.

My criticism (rather boldly stated to the dismay of one critic) was that Earthjustice on behalf of its multiple clients started the unnecesary legal fight which now has resulted in proposed legislative changes to the ESA, that could result in even LESS protection for wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. I said it was a dumb legal move on the part of Earthjustice and they have only themselves to blame. Wolves are recovered in the NRM, as shown by scientific evidence of genetic connectivity and metapopulation characteristics. Potections are in place under the ESA to keep them from ever being at risk of extinction, again. That much should be clear.

Well, some of these plaintiffs finally saw the light, and have decided a compromise is better than a complete loss (through changes to the ESA). The result is that the chief counsel for Earthjustice announced yesterday he is withdrawing from the case to avoid an ethics problem, where his client's respective interests have now taken them. Here is the latest news on the matter.

http://helenair.com/news/article_c3a0e442-511e-11e0-b154-001cc4c03286.html

Similarly, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is working overtime to keep the Great Lakes wolves on the ESA, when they are clearly recovered and the states of MN, MI and WI all want wolves off. In fact, the state wildlife agencies of 13 Midwester states and 2 Canadian provinces believe the Great Lakes wolves should be delisted.

If Earthjustice and strident environmental groups it represent, who want wolves everywhere and in large numbers continue, the end result in Congress will not support such a view in this political climate. Push too hard and the ESA itself will be at risk.

The problem with the people so in favor of the wolf is they are in denial of the science involved. The science clearly shows wolf numbers are too high and their numbers need to be drastically reduced for the good of all wildlife -- including the wolf.

Prior to reintroduction the science used in the EIS to establish how many wolves were required for "successful" reintroduction and what wolves effect would be on existing wildlife stated wolves would have minimal impact on existing elk populations, their reproduction would be slow, elk calf survival was expected to drop slightly but stay steady around 25 to 30%, they expected no impact on adult bull elk, they expected minimal impact on livestock, they expected aspens to flourish after the elk numbers were reduced, they expected minimal impact on moose and deer, wolves were expected to prey on the sick and weak,they expected minimal impact on other predators and above all they expected the states to take over management of the wolves when they reached 300 in the 3 state region of MT, WY and ID.

The science used in the original EIS has turned out to be completely wrong and has been verified in current research. Wolves reproduce much faster than expected and expanded their range far more than anticipated. Their current numbers are over 10 times the original goal and it is a known fact the numbers used are very much lower than the true numbers of wolves that are out there Recent documentation shows know packs and individual animals are not being counted. The wolves kill more than ten times the number of elk per year than originally anticipated ; elk calf survival in areas where there are wolves is at 0; bull elk are being killed at an alarming rate; Moose have been driven to near total extinction in areas where there are wolves; wildlife losses are way beyond original estimates -- in one instance over 130 sheep were killed in one day -- obviously all of these were not eaten; the vast majority of wolf kills are on healthy animals, many animals are only half eaten, eaten while alive, calves are ripped out and eaten leaving mothers to die --- in reality wolves are a brutal viscous killer -- not the pretty noble "dog" environmentalists see.

In Yellowstone park whee no hunting is allowed the elk population has dropped from 20,0000 to 4,000 with an avg age of 9 yrs (vs 4yrs before the wolves); calf survival is at 0; the Supt for the park flat out stated the only chance a calf has to survive is to be born in the town of Mammoth -- otherwise they are killed by the wolves. The yellowstone elk herd was to stay around 7,000 to 9,000 animals minimum after wolf reintroduction -- this population is on the verge of total collapse -- Moose are all but completely gone from the park due to wolf predation; recent studies show Aspens are not regenerating due to fewer elk; -- if you cared at all about the overall environment this should be extremely alarming.

The bottom line is ALL of the science shows there are too many wolves and their numbers need to be drastically reduced to assure the survival of other ungulates. No one says kill them all but the FACTS are wolves kill far more than anticipated, they are brutal killers and prey mostly on healthy animals, they are having devastating effect on elk populations and their numbers are in need of immediate control. They have exceeded all recovery goals by over 10 times. The devastation is beyond belief and the people sitting back in the cities with no concept of reality choose to ignore the science and rather like to live in fantasy land and adore the pretty picture of the noble wolf and ignore the reality.

Wolves kill many people -- just look at the research in Russia and other European countries -- it won't be long till an innocent child or jogger is killed.

Face reality -- hunters love all wildlife more than goof environmentalists who do not understand the science they claim to -- hunters brought the big game animals back fro extinction because they love the animals and they like Grizzlies, Black Bears, Mountain Lions, Coyotes and even a few wolves -- but they live in the real world and understand the need for gproper game management -- not unlimited lawsuits and proper science being grounded by frivolous lawsuits and technicalities

And since unlimited lawsuits and technicalities rather than science has ruled -- all responsible scientists want the wolf off the ESA -- it is now up to congress to get the matter under control

You are way off OLY2, where is your evidence for all your statistical claims. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Program Coordinator from October, 2010 (6 months ago, wolves in the NRM DPS have leveled and apparently show the balance of nature and the natural order, this is your scientific proof: http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/annualreports.htm

In the report it states the wolf population is roughly the same it was in 2009, actually down slightly (1651 to 1733). How can that be if they're reproducing at such an alarming rate? Wolf damage to livestock (199 to 193) stayed virtually the same, how can that be if they kill at such an alarming rate? Sheep and dog losses were much lower in 2010 (749-249 sheep and 24-2 dogs) than they were in 2009. Again, how can this be if wolves are out of control killers?

The day and age of humans living out of fear of nature needs to come to an end. Do not sling all kinds of false information around if you do not have the proper facts. Nature will balance itself and we as a species need to respect and not impose our lethal controlling ways on nature.

Get your facts straight.

It is amazing that any ungulates ever survived before white westerners settled in North America to protect them. How did they survive without your help and with all those wolves roaming the greater Rocky Mountain region? How did the American Bison survive in such huge numbers without the white man's help?
With your logic, the wolves would have killed all of them by the mid 1800's.
How did the Nez Perce tribe ever survive with all those wolves and without the whiteman to protect them?
How?
I would sincerely like to know the logic behind any of your arguements.

Actually if you read the logs of Lewis and Clark, large areas of the mountains were void of wildlife. Documented proof of the consequences of unregulated predators.

The problem with you people trying to live the natural balance dream is that this isn't 1492. This is 2011 and there isn't room for unregulated wolf populations. Sorry bud, it just won't work in todays modern world! Wolves need to be kept to the most remote areas.

Dale, you really don't know much do ya? just because there was not a lot of wildlife back then, does not make it was wiped out by predators. Again, there you go against placing blame on predators. I thought you said you respect predators? How does one respect predators byt yet kill them? You are a hypocrite Dale to the highest degree.

I am telling you what the L&C journals said. Are you telling me you were there to discount their historical records?

Dale, no where in the articles did it say there was no game there because the predators wiped them out. Making up your own facts there pal. Where is your respect for predators like you claim?

How did they survive? Because wolves were allowed to be shot anytime anyplace. And they were by all kinds of indian tribes, fur trappers and such. We did not have a bunch of tree huggers standing on every corner trying to protect the big bad wolf. Wolf populations then and now should be controlled by hunting them to keep that at predictable levels.........

Really? So in 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, and part of the 1800's wolves were being shot on a regular basis because they were killing off all the Deer, Elk, Moose and Bison. The Native American Tribes were killing off all the wolves centuries ago before the white man came and settled in their land. So the Native Americans now are helping save the wolf, why?
The answer is that they understand the balance of nature and don't just thirst to kill for the sake of killing. Why do the latest statistics support the fact that there is now a balanced ecosystem in the region.
Has any species ever caused the extinction of another species other than human beings? Please share your wisdom and knowledge.

Just like the caucasion populace, not all tribes want wolves. You need to get your facts straight.

You seem to lack any factual evidence at all in any of your arguments.
Please get your facts straight, read the most recent report from US Fish and Wildlife-http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/annualreports.htm
The facts are that wolves are not running rampant and decimating any of the wild ungulate herds in the Northern Rockie region, or livestock. Read the report, wolves are making the region healthier.

http://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_e915c31c-1ec1...

Sorry you lose again in the facts department. Yellowstonbe had nearly 20,000 elk before wolves, now they have been reduced to 4635. Official count!!! Sorry, that's the facts pal.

And? who cares how many elk there are Dale. The elk in yellowstone were overpopulated and needed to get thinned down. It isbeyond me why some of you hunters cannot grasp the fact that wolves eat elk.

That is no evidence that the wolves are causing that decline. They sight and there are many factors to the decline of the herds. They also state they feel the numbers have stabilized and that the herd was too large before to sustain a healthy herd. Those are the facts from the article you sighted, did you read it?

Denial,it is such an ugly thing. I am embarrassed for you Lnbi.

Mr. Truthseeker, if you could please do me a favor and research this question; has any one species (not viral or bacterial) ever caused the extinction of another species other than human beings?
Even more specifically have wolves ever caused the extinction of another animal?
The denial here is that predators are perhaps the most important part of any ecosystem, and wolves are in that role. Living in fear is living in ignorance. In the 21st century, with knowledge at your fingertips, you would think that humans would get over the power trip of guns, poisens, traps and killing for the sake of killing. I believe it is a sign of fear and a lack of intelligence. It takes much more courage to revere and understand another species than it does to kill and wipe out another species.
The limits set forth by these states (ID, MT, and WY) are too minimal for the healthy survival of the specie. Cutting back a population of 1700 to 400 pushes them right back to being extremely endangered in the lower 48 again.
You are correct, denial is an ugly thing, and too many human beings have been in denial for too long that we are the ones who destroy nature and ecosystems, not other species.

No Dale, you need to get your facts straight. Why weren't you able to answer my question? You said that wolves are spreading disease to elk and I asked you to provide proof and as I expected, you couldn't. Why? because you have none. You only assume it to be true. All you did was post a link and an article talking about e. granulosis. Nothing in there says that wolves are spreading disease to elk.

Excuse me, the photos were infected moose lungs, my mistake, but the same effect. Documented proof has been shown by reasearchers that canids are a difinitive host and spread the disease to ungulates and even humans.

Pretty hard to discount documented and photographed facts. Face it, you can't win a discussion based on fact, that's why congress will most likely remove wolves from the ESA as they should be. They are not endangered, there are over 60,000 wolves in north america.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <p> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.