This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
Breaking News: Western Wolf Hunts Shot Down
From the Associated Press:
A federal judge has restored endangered species protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, derailing plans by three states to hold public wolf hunts this fall.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula granted a preliminary injunction late Friday restoring the protections for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Molloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent. . . .
Environmentalists sued to overturn the decision, arguing wolf numbers would plummet if hunting were allowed. . . .
"There were fall hunts scheduled that would call for perhaps as many as 500 wolves to be killed. We're delighted those wolves will be saved," said attorney Doug Honnold with Earthjustice, who had argued the case before Molloy on behalf of 12 environmental groups.
In his ruling, Molloy said the federal government had not met its standard for wolf recovery, including interbreeding of wolves between the three states to ensure healthy genetics.
"Genetic exchange has not taken place," Molloy wrote in the 40-page decision.
Molloy said hunting and state laws allowing the killing of wolves for livestock attacks would likely "eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur."
Your reaction?
If I lived in wolf country and they (wolves) were killing my livestock, I'd shoot them and bury them.
Jim
Posted by: jstreet | July 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM
WE ARE EXCHANGING ELK AND DEER FOR A FLIPPING WOLF
Posted by: | July 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I cannot repeat my reaction - I'm pretty certain if I dwell on this any longer my blood pressure will explode through the roof.
Posted by: Tom Sorenson | July 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Impeach the judge.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | July 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM
this outcome was predetermined. check out the link to the Billings Gazette article. http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/07/18/news/state/17-wolves.txt
the article quotes Judge Malloy in pre-motion hearings that gave a clear indication of how he'd rule before he heard the facts. the enviro lawyers were judge shopping and picked the perfect nutcase to hear their bitchin and moanin.
Posted by: tom church | July 21, 2008 at 01:12 PM
This is great news. The problem wasn't the wolf hunt, but Wyoming's "kill e'm all" plan that was wiping out wolves too quickly. We are covering this over at:
http://www.wilderness-sportsman.com/wsblog/
People were using high powered rifles to gun down three legged radio collared wolves from ATV's in Wyomings "kill zone".
Overzealous poachers and goofs got the wolves re-protected.
Posted by: Eric | July 21, 2008 at 11:26 PM
As a former resident of Idaho and a new resident of Montana (My job just transferred me up here last week) I believe that I have some first hand knowledge on the subject. It is time for America to start letting the residents of western states decide their own land use practices.
It is not and will never be my opinion that I can control the environmental policies of states like New York, Virgina, or California, so why should residents of those states control how my public lands are used. Yes
Western states may have lower populations, however we do not have a lower iq. We told the nation that we did not want any wolves, yet here they remain a decade later. That is a reality that we must deal with, so let us deal with it in our own way. No one from any of these places will have to see a slaughtered elk calf, or have their dog stalked by wolves (both have actually happened to me). Until these people actually see the destruction that these animals are capable of i fear that i will never be able to convince them that they do not belong here.
Posted by: Dan White | July 21, 2008 at 11:49 PM
The wolf haters have come out of the wood work. Frist, screw the ranchers. They are grazing on land I pay to manage with my taxdollars.
Second, deer and elk do not belong to us hunters, they belong to the land, as do wolves.
Posted by: Matt M | July 21, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I agree Matt M. If you have a problem with your cattle being killed by wolves buy your own land to graze and put up a fence around it to protect your investment. Only out West can you raise and graze livestock without owning the land that is being used. Everywhere else people have to be far more responsible and god forbid improve the land that they own and use.
Posted by: William | July 22, 2008 at 01:07 AM
matt m. and william are the typical morons that people out west have to deal with on a daily basis. Screw the ranchers? Screw you! If you have ever been in the west and saw first hand the good that ranchers and hunters do for the land and wildlife you might change your mind, but i doubt it. You are to dumb to realise what a good thing is. Hunters and ranchers do more to help the wildlife and the environment than any of you damn greenies ever thought about doing. I agree with Dan White do what you want to screw up your land and wildlife in the east leave the west to the people that live here.
Posted by: Marshall | July 22, 2008 at 01:22 AM
I think that the reintroduction of wolves is similar to having an exterminator eliminate your termites, and then you reintroducing them becuase you feel bad. I think they should be shot... the hunting will give state wildlife agencies money, it will ease the pressure on deer and elk, and it will rid the west of an animal that offers no benefits to the human race. Thankfully there are still ranchers who do not care about being PC and still give those wolves a taste of lead when they deserve it.
Posted by: Brian | July 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM
sure wolves may need to be controled, but saying they don't belong is overkill, no matter what we all say, most hhunters (including me) do it for sport and meat. with wolves reintroduced, hunting will lose its biggest arguement, but that is no reason to kill off a species.
Posted by: liston B | July 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM
deer, bass, trout, wahoo, kingfish, and moose are all examples of animals that do not benifit the human race, yet why do we keep them around, becuase they are fun to kill (blunt but true). i don't think its too much to ask to set up the same program for wolves that we have for other large predators.
Posted by: jacob | July 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I'm not too sure about Judge Molloy's concern about the importance of genetic exchange to the health of a species. It looks to me like our species took a giant step backward in the common sense department when the Judge's parents exchanged their genetics.
Posted by: Dave M | July 22, 2008 at 01:39 PM
"Second, deer and elk do not belong to us hunters, they belong to the land, as do wolves."
Baloney. Anything on public land that isn't privately owned is publically owned. The taxpayers own the birds, the deer, the elk, the wolves &c.
If good local management practice finds that limiting the wolf herd at some sustainable low level is desirable, so be it.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | July 22, 2008 at 02:57 PM
O MY GOD, PEOPLE!
All you people who think wolves are more important than humanity need to just stop, think a minute, and take a reality check.
If anyone has seen the movie "Idiocracy" you will know what kind of sheer stupidity I am talking about.
You want to trade the livelihoods of ranchers in the west for the lives of a bunch of wolves (who by the way could not care, and in fact would feel good, if they just ate your sister). Sometimes I wish that would just happen a few times, because thats the only thing that can convince you idiots that wolves to not belong in close proximity to humanity.
You want to "restore" the west to nature, and "return" it to the way it was before humanity made its footprint. But you have to know that this is impossible, and not only that, it is unjust. You want humanity (oh, but wait, that includes you!) removed. Humanity is not meant to live inside the cages at the zoo. But in some people's cases, I wonder if it might be better for the rest of us if they were the ones in the cages.
Here's the problem with what you want:
Firstly, you have no right to say that I, who live in Idaho, must subject myself and my way of life to the predations of wolves just so you in California or New York (who have never seen a gravel road, or more than 10 trees all together in your lives) can have the satisfaction of knowing that there are wolves living in the "wilderness" that adjoins my backyard.
Secondly, wolves are not now, nor were they ever a "threatened" species, let alone "endangered." There are more wolves in Canada and Alaska than there are people in the state of Montana. That is a cold, hard fact, no ifs ands or buts! Wolves never needed to be reintroduced to the Lower 48. If you wanted to see wolves in the wild, you could visit Canada or Alaska.
Thirdly, wolves were eradicated from the Lower 48 for a very good reason, and thus should have been. Wolves and people do not mix, and when people moved in, wolves had to move out or be taken out. Simple as that, wolves make way for the new top of the food chain. If it was not meant to be so, we would be listed right there with moose, elk and deer as their prey species.
So my question to you is this:
What the hell makes you think you can tell me to subject myself to your desire to have wolves as my neighbors? What makes you think wolves were actually threatened or endangered? What makes you think humanity and wolves can live in harmony where they come into contact?
Only after you answer those questions with solid, non-academic, empirical, eye-witness, grassroots proof will I concede that wolves have any purpose in the Lower 48 other than to piss me off and make you feel good about yourself.
God Damn, I hate when imbeciles like you try to run my life, and do stuff that negatively impacts my lifestyle. You people do not have the faintest idea what really goes on in the west. So before you go spouting off, just try getting the facts straight. Try living there, and raising 900 head of cattle to market, and you will understand.
So here's what I propose:
You all go to Hell.
And I'll send the wolves there to meet you.
God, Guns, Hunting, Small Government = GOOD
Gays, Greenies, Libs, Big Government = BAD
Man I worry about the future of this country.
Posted by: ethan | July 22, 2008 at 08:43 PM
if we wanna hunt em so bad lets wait till theres more so we dont hunt for 2 years and then have to wait another 50 to do it again......
Posted by: ryan | July 22, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I'm saddened to find hunters fighting for the wolves. "Screw the ranchers" is a horrible attitude to have - I know many ranchers and most of them are some of the hardest working individuals I know. Owning the land and building fences won't do a thing to keep wolves out. I'm not sure what the logic is behind thinking it would. I find this issue much like the HSUS problem - even some hunters don't realize the true intent of HSUS - just as some hunters that don't live with wolves don't understand the true devastation these animals are already having on game populations. Just fifteen years ago you would have been hard pressed to find a documented wolf attack on a human in the U.S. - now it seems there's one every month or so - that should say something. Where I used to only see wolf tracks, I'm now seeing wolves. Where I used to see elk, I'm seeing wolves and not elk. The numbers we're being given are very low - I would guess that if there were only 1500 wolves in Idaho, they'd be pretty tough to find - but the reality is that they aren't hard to find. I hope that hunters can come together on this issue because wolves are a serious issue for us in the West - just because you don't live in this area, I hope you don't just throw us under the bus because the issue is not effecting you - I like to think that hunters would unite for the common good of other hunters.
Posted by: Tom Sorenson | July 23, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I can't believe the anti science diatribe I am reading. Ther wolves belong to the land. We humans think we own the land.
"The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth". Cheif Seattle
"Harmony with the land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left, you cannot love game and hate predators". Aldo Leopold
The "greenies" have done way more for the land that ranchers. If it was not for the environmental movement, the republcians would have sold off every square inch of public land to the private sector. Ranchers have blocked restoration of the grizzly and the bison every stpe of the way. And truth be told, hunters and fishermen, although deserving of some credit, have also done things we should not be so proud of. Stocking of non native pheasent at the expense of native birds, non native fish at the expense of native fish, supressing predator populations in order to artifically increase ungulate populations and then telling everyone how important hunting is to control those populations are all good examples.
Eathan,
You don't want wolves as your neighbors, I don't want cows on my public land.
Posted by: Matt M | July 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I completely support Matt M's or any Californian's execercise of their First Amendment right to tell an Idahoan to ride to hell on the back of a wolf.
That said, Matt, I don't think "anti-science" describes the position. The whole reason why wolves were delisted and made huntable is because the ESA seems to have worked in restoring these wolves to a sustainable population. That's why the wildlife managers, who tend to be scientists, made a season for 'em.
As for the rest, I think you're off the mark. Ranchers just like everyone else come in all stripes. Some of them overgraze their land, shut off public access to state and federal land, and live as bloodsucking parasites on the back of the taxpayer through USDA subsidies, undervalued grazing fees, and tax breaks. Others are stand up people.
And I don't entirely mind the introduction of non-native species. I don't see why having a whole mess of pheasant around can be viewed as a "bad thing." I wish we had a couple hundred thousand of them in southern Arizona. A non-native species that has economic value and can maintain a stable population is not always a terrible thing to behold. It's not like pheasants are having an adverse impact comparable to buffelgrass.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | July 23, 2008 at 01:04 PM
There was a time when man took only what he needed; that time is gone.
There was a time when he gave something back; that time is gone.
There was a time when he worshipped the creator & honored creation; that time too, is gone.
And now the waters are polluted, Our natural resources are all but gone, and creation is dying.
It is time to find our way back to the earth.
Posted by: Grey Bear | July 23, 2008 at 02:45 PM
"There was a time when man took only what he needed; that time is gone."
When was that? What is the evidence behind the claim?
Posted by: Mike Diehl | July 23, 2008 at 02:56 PM
"God, Guns, Hunting, Small Government = GOOD
Gays, Greenies, Libs, Big Government = BAD"
Ethan,
What do gays, guns, or any of this other stuff have to do with sound ecological science? Not much.
Posted by: huntergatherer | July 23, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Mike,
I say it's anti science because the delisting would have allowed for reducing the wolf population to 200 wolves. Combine 200 with a handful in NM and AZ. Considering that wolves once roamed coast to coast, the number we would be left with is not enough to contribute to the ecosystem. Therefore, since the decision to delist was based on the outcrys of ranchers, hunters, and other special interest groups rather than on the idea of a healthy ecosystem, I stand by my statement.
As for pheasants, a tremendous amount of money goes into breeding, stocking, and manageing these non native birds. All that money could go to prarie chickens or other native birds that have been drastically reduced and in some cases are considered endangered. Once we build those populations, we can hunt them. Altering the ecosystem for economic reasons is not justified in my opinion.
Posted by: Matt M | July 23, 2008 at 03:50 PM
What's wrong with 200? Is there a magic number much greater than that which the science better supports?
As for AZ and NM, we're not even talking about the same species. The ones in AZ and NM haven't been delisted.
"As for pheasants, a tremendous amount of money goes into breeding, stocking, and manageing these non native birds. All that money could go to prarie chickens or other native birds that have been drastically reduced and in some cases are considered endangered."
Hmm. Well, in AZ there's not much money going into stocking pheasant, and the prairie hen was never a biggie in AZ in the first place. As I recall, prairie hens don't much favor agricultural fields either, but pheasants thrive along them in the Dakotas and Iowa without much demand for cash to manage them at all.
So in my view, pheasants are just fine. I only wish that in AZ they could sustain themselves (population wise) somewhere other than Yuma.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | July 23, 2008 at 05:18 PM