"On the other hand I'm glad even chaff here is basically civil..."

+1 to that

A political strategy - split the masses into two groups that argue hatefully, endlessly - then a tiny minority can slip in and loot the treausry without anyone noticing because we're so busy hating each other

All my self restraint required to not make some lame Sarah Palin joke : )

I don't think this case really changes the debate for those who were involved in the before. Wolf kills had been documented in other areas and in the more distant pass in the US. There were enough cases of near fatal attacks here that this probably wasn't a huge surprise to those following the issue.

As far as other agendas go this was interesting for me. I was rather surprised I didn't see the "kill all the wolves" agenda that supposedly exists. I couldn't find much of it at all even on a hunting forum. Its seems like a smaller group than you'd think.

What I did see LOTS of was people trying to come up with any excuse to say it wasn't wolves. There was all kinds of baseless speculation that it was feral dogs (unlikely in that area), a mountain lion (non-existant in that area), or fowl play (no basis given except some racist speculations about Alaskan Natives and culture clashes with a teacher).

I was also very annoyed at supposed experts continually parotting the line that "There has never been a DOCUMENTED case of a HEALTHY wolf KILLING a human in NORTH AMERICA." I capped all thoe words because they are important qualifiers. There have been likely wolf killings but we don't have FBI files on them so they aren't "documented," for example. We do have documented cases of recent wolf attacks but since no one died the above statement slyly discounts them.

It seems some people want to preserve the idea of wolves as being misunderstood but harmless at all cost. They seem to think admitting wolves are (rarely) dangerous would instantly justify massive wolf hunts etc.
I don't see why its such a big deal really. We know grizzly bears are dangerous but we've been carefully protecting them as much as possible for decades.

Again before you wolf lovers out there flame me I like wolves to. I just think wolves need some better informed friends. Instead of sticking our heads in the sand we should be looking for ways to avoid a problem before it gets someone hurt.

According to Oregon Public TV piece, biggest threat to wolves is from ranchers because they kill livestock. Also hunters don't like them.

It is possible to manage livestock in a way that minimizes predation. Conservation groups pay ranchers for lost livestock.

But it's easier to just kill off any wolves.

There are 4 wolves in Oregon that migrated from Idaho. 2 of them killed livestock, so they're going to be killed. Seems like sort of a shame. How can you have a "pack" of just 2 wolves?

Wolves are a convenient scapegoat and will take a few cattle per year. Now balance those few losses against the tens of thousands of cattle lost every year to harsh North American freezes, more to diseases, and I do not think they've finished counting the losses from the southern heat wave through Texas. I'm not saying no hunting as man has replaced mountain lions as the apex predator in many places, but people really need to look at this rationally in terms of ecosystem health.

Jerry,

I am pretty excited because there are at least two new wolf packs in our area. We have found scat several times and bear scat with wolf toenails in it. All in all I hope for a
few to continue to be established.

(Wait for it) but--- the idea of ranchers and hunters being some sort of villains bothers me.

In this area it has been at least two generations of ranchers since they had to deal with wolves.Their grandparents worked long and hard to get rid of them. People don't make that kind of effort due to unfounded fear. Today ranchers suddenly are exposed to large losses to their income from predation (and we are not talking about ranchers that are in the 1% here) and are expected to pay for additional security features (many are impractical anyway). The documentation required to be paid for wolf predation is hard to get and no one in this area has been paid yet. It is unfair to put the burden of reintroduction on just a few.

The hunters I know are all over the place on this issue. Some want wolves as part of a
healthy ecosystem, some want to hunt them when there are enough to be sustainable, some want nothing to do with them at all as the deer and elk herds are wayyyy down from historical levels, and those with dogs are really concerned as wolves make
great effort to kill any dogs they find and currently the hunters are not allowed to defend their animals.

The decisions about this stuff is mostly done by people that won't be effected. If you
don't get some kind of bridge built between stake holders, you will end up with the few
wolves being done in by vigilantes.

Apparently a wolf made it down form Wyoming to Colorado a while back. I think thats cool, I hope we get some wolves in Colorado. RMNP would seem to be a good place for them. On the other hand I'm not sure wolves everywhere should be the goal. Is it really realistic to try and maintain a healthy population of wolves in non wilderness areas with a lot of ranches? Wolves can cost a LOT of money to ranchers. By the time we take out all the troublesome wolves will there be enough left to justify the money and controversy?

I don't have the answers. Right now ranchers want no wolves, sportsmen are divided, and others seem to just want as many wolves as possible. No ones going to get everything they want. On the one hand we can't get rid of wolves so the ranchers might as well get used to them. On the other hand we can't manage the entire northern rockies around wolves. Acting like we can or should as some wolf proponents seem to be doing just makes you enemies. In my opinion ranchers shouldn't be an enemy they should be an ally. Ranchers may shoot wolves more often then some would like but on the other hand ranch land is privately owned land that is kept in a relatively natural state. We want them to continue ranching that land not sell it to someone who will turn it into condos.

I can't imagine a conservation group paying ranchers for wolf predation. Not going to happen. Well, a hunting group might, since they are more about conservation. Never happen with an environmental group.

Again before you wolf lovers out there flame me I like wolves to. I just think wolves need some better informed friends.

Ecologists and wildlife biologists know that charismatic megafauna are the way to get people interested in environmental issues, and wolves are a near-perfect example. They're, smart, impressive-looking, have distinguishable personalities and a relatable social structure, all in addition to looking dog-like, which triggers all the kindred feelings humans have about dogs. There's also research that suggests taking care of an apex predator in an area will of necessity require caring for smaller, less photogenic parts of an ecosystem and is thus a more effective approach than piecemeal conservation of smaller species.

I admit I think wolves are awesome, but they also kill and eat large animals and people don't like to think about that. It's their raison d'etre, a fact that is conveniently romanticized out of existence. Most modern omnivorous Americans have never seen a cow being killed or butchered. We have a generation or more who have no idea how their meat ends up in the grocery store. It just sort of exists independent of the process it went through to get there. Likewise, I think for many wolf-lovers, wolves exist in a sort of bloodless, deathless vacuum where they can be free, majestic and represent the "spirit of the wild" or whatever, without the unpleasant-to-think-about killing that they do to survive. I'm not sure if that attitiude is changeable, honestly. At least not directly. It's part of a larger cultural problem.

As a New Englander Im not that informed- I was under the impression that ranchers are by and large on public land and welfare? is that so? If true I would rather see wolves and wild game on that land not ranchers. If hunters don't like the wolves I would just say they can but their meat at Costco and let the men continue to hunt.

I can't imagine a conservation group paying ranchers for wolf predation. Not going to happen. Well, a hunting group might, since they are more about conservation. Never happen with an environmental group.

First google hit off of "compensation wolf predation" is the group Defenders of Wildlife and a little poking around on their site shows they've run a compensation program for over 20 years, just recently transitioning the program to state governmental control.

"the idea of ranchers and hunters being some sort of villains bothers me."

Same here

And that was a major emphasis of the OPB piece

"It's complicated" would be a more accurate description


One thing the OPB piece said about compensation for wolf kill, was it had to be proven that it was a wolf.

In some cases it's not clear, so probably some wolf kill is not compensated.

In some cases it was pretty clearly not wolf kill, easy to just blame wolves.

"I can't imagine a conservation group paying ranchers for wolf predation"

"Defenders of Wildlife ... they've run a compensation program for over 20 years"

We need to move away from this adversarial relationship with each other.

We have more in common, can find areas of agreement, let's go hiking...

And pass a constitutional amendment to not allow people or corporations to spend unlimited amount on politicians or issues.

+1 on "charasmatic megafouna" I think you nailed what tends to happen. In my opinion personifing an animal makes it a debate about emotions which isn't a good thing to base wildlife managment on.

Edit - Okay someone mentioned already that compensation is a problem. Theoretically it should work but it sounds like its hard to implement right. Its also going to be more and more of a problem as wolves move out of the bigger wilderness areas into areas where there are more chance for trouble.

Edited by Cameron on 12/08/2011 11:17:43 MST.

"Its also going to be more and more of a problem as wolves move out of the bigger wilderness areas into areas where there are more chance for trouble."

The OPB piece said that when wildlife people work with ranchers they can minimize wolf predation. Ranchers have to do all sorts of stuff to raise livestock, wolf management is just one more thing. Maybe in some cases they have to kill a wolf.

I remember my ranching days near Yellowstone NP in Idaho. The ranchers' attitude was simple: Shoot, Shovel, and Shup up!

We had to deal with large animals - moose, elk, and bear - migrating out of the park and causing problems on the nearby ranches. We lost more fencing, field crops, and stacked hay than livestock, but the dollar cost was significant. Moose walk straight through barbed wire fencing without noticing it, and livestock will find and utilize the opening before the rancher will and can fix it. Elk and deer love to eat wheat and barley and then lie down in the field.

One winter, the Yellowstone elk herd came down enmass and consumed almost all of the stacked hay one rancher had bailed and stored to feed his cattle for the entire winter. The Park Service paid him for the loss, but there wasn't enough surplus hay for sale at any price to replace the loss. He had to sell most of his herd. What do you suppose was his attitude towards Bambi and associates after that?

Edited by wandering_bob on 12/08/2011 12:28:24 MST.

"As a New Englander Im not that informed- I was under the impression that ranchers are by and large on public land and welfare? is that so? If true I would rather see wolves and wild game on that land not ranchers. If hunters don't like the wolves I would just say they can but their meat at Costco and let the men continue to hunt."

Trolling perhaps. Sounds pretty prejudiced. That kind of attitude won't get any support
which will end up hurting the animals.


Just look at any forest map of the NW and you will see the 1 square mile checkerboards of public and private lands. Wolves don't stay on the public lands.

it's a pretty sad day when we can't make room for a relatively small population of other mammals to have a go of it.

Not prejudiced just uninformed -which is what I said in my post. Thats just the impression I got from reading articles here and there over the years.
Thats why I asked.
If its truly private land than that calls for a different approach. If they are on leased public land I have no patients for them. Conservation is more important than their private gains. Thats all.

"All my self restraint required to not make some lame Sarah Palin joke : )"

She beat you to the punch a long time ago, Jerry. ;)

Wolves don't just stay on public land they are on both private and public land. Many of these ranchs back up to public areas. The wolves don't care about a "fence". I personally don't have a problem with wolves being reintroduced, however I do have a problem with how they are being managed. The population is way above the reintroductions goals, it's time to reduce the number of animals to this goal number. In a true eco-system the number of wolves would reset themself when they ran out of food (aka elk and moose) however with ranchs all over the west the wolf population will not reset itself. They will just keep finding a depandable source of food in sheep and cows.