« Update: Iowa Okays Food-Pantry Venison | Main | Polar Bear Shot Far Inland; Biologists Baffled »

April 03, 2008

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.

Discussion Topic: First Delisted Wolves Shot In Wyoming

From the Star-Tribune:

At least three wolves were killed by Wyoming residents over the weekend, after the animal was removed from the federal endangered species list.



Large numbers of hunters reportedly prowled the state’s newly designated wolf predator area in Sublette County Friday, Saturday and Sunday, locals and outfitters said.

 . . .

All three of the confirmed wolf kills happened in the Cowboy State’s newly designated predator zone for wolves, where the animals can be shot on sight without limits, as long as the time, location and sex of each kill is reported to the Game and Fish Department within 10 days.

Your reaction?

Comments

clark

Nice shooting boys! Wish they had pictures of your trophies.

mark phelan

hello readers, I live in sacramento, cal and I am trying to find an article on the american river. It was sometime in 1969 about the river being the best salmon and steelhead river in cal. we fisherman out here our fighting the government to restore the salmon in our rivers. If anyone has this article please contact me at 916-873-6069 collect my name is Mark

Jason

Yep, we will have them back on that list in no time at all.

Pete

Management is good....without limits may be a little excessive.

Blue Ox

Like I said before: now you see them, now you don't.

William

I'd agree that the "without limits" thing throws healthy population control to the wind. I don't oppose hunting wolves but almost every other game animal has bag limits for the good of the species. I wasn't aware there are enough wolves out there to go from endangered species to hunt them all you want overnight.

RJ

Ranchers have strong feelings regarding wolves. We all do, they are the monsters of our childhood, from Red Riding Hood to Peter and the Wolf, to the Werewolf. And why? because the are so like us, they have leaders and families and are clever. So we make them evil. This complicates the hunting, much worse than a cartoon deer.
We have to remove the emotion, (which is hard) and look at the reality, or we will suffer from the extremes, over population or extinction.

SilverArrow

A step backward to be sure!
SA

WA Mtnhunter

Don't worry. They'll only get the dumb ones. The rest will smarten up and avoid hunting areas and daylight movement real soon.

Harold

I live in Wyoming, so let me do a little background education on the wolf controversy and the "predator zone".

After a long and controversial debate about how to/should we delist the wolf, the following compromise was reached with every one, including the USFWS:

Wolves would be allowed in Yellowstone and Teton National Parks as well as the Forest Service and wilderness areas around those parks. While wolves may be hunted in those areas, the hunting will be conservative and under strict controls. This area encompasses most of the north-west section of Wyoming. However, in the rest of the state, wolves are not welcome and that remaining area is the "predator zone."

Matt Mallery

Harold,

Since wolves once roamed through ALL of Wyoming, what right do we humans have to say they can't do so again? Once again, ranchers get their way and the land suffers for it. Same thing since 1850.

alberta hunter

I have hunted the same western Alberta area for decades and shot any wolf in range and encouraged others to do the same. Sadly,due to less trappers etc. the place is overrun by wolves and they have decimated all the other animals and are moving into agricultural areas. They are ruthless killers who multiply like flies and if you are seeing them regularly they need to be culled, plain and simple. I dont mind having a balance of wild animals but we have to do our part like we have for generations and not be led by emotional libtards who think a scenic view pull off is wilderness.

ethan

Matt Mallery says:
"Since wolves once roamed through ALL of Wyoming, what right do we humans have to say they can't do so again? Once again, ranchers get their way and the land suffers for it. Same thing since 1850."

I realize that this post of mine may be deleted by the editors, due to some insensitive content, but there are some things that must be said. I therefore invoke my right to free speech, which, as in the case of so many imbeciles throughout the history of the First Amendment, should not be infringed upon.

So, I say to Matt Mallery:
Humanity has every right to say they can't roam all of Wyoming--let alone all of the Western US--and the right to follow through and prevent them from doing so. From the beginning humanity has had this right. Without this right, we would not be at the top of the food chain: we would be hunted down and eaten right along with the deer and elk that the wolves consume the way a wildfire consumes the prairie grass.

Yes, the ranchers do get their way, and they damn well should. Which is more important: the livelihoods and property (and consequently the lives) of people in the areas in question or the livelihoods of wolves. Before you answer that on impulse, take into account that the beef or lamb that those ranchers produce goes to the supermarket where YOU buy it to eat. YOUR livelihood, no less YOUR LIFE depends on the continuation of ranching and farming, and what you may call the "occupation" or "rape" of the landscape by humanity.

No, the land does not suffer. You do not understand this because, though you have experienced and furthered the process just by living, you have not taken part at a visceral level in the replacement of wolves by humanity in the food chain. Much of the area that wolves once roamed is now unsuitable as habitat for them, because of the ways it has been irreversibly changed. But that irreversible change has benefitted humanity. As to wolves being necessary for the "balance of the ecosystem" well, that is just complete bullshit, and you know that as well as everyone who has ever eaten meat. Human hunters can, and have taken the place of wolves in many wilderness ecosystems through the rightful pursuance of the sport, or in some cases the necessity of hunting. Why would we need to bring wolves back into the picture, just to have them in competition with humanity? The last time this happened, the two species did not mix well, and so it was for a very legitimate reason that wolves were exterminated in the Lower 48 all those years back.

So, yes, humanity by right should and will limit the ranges and roamings of the wolves that have been reintroduced, keeping them penned up in wilderness areas and National Parks. You may revel in seeing them there any time you like. And this should satisfy you, along with any other greenie out there: if you simply want to have the "comforting" knowledge that there are wolves roaming the wild places in this country, please feel free to visit them in their habitat, under their terms (which would put you below them in the food chain) and see how it turns out.

Really though, if you are so passionate about having the earth in a state where human impact and presence is not to be felt, please feel free to sacrifice yourself to the hunger of the wolves for the good of the earth. After all, isn't that what you, and groups such as the Sierra Club want: for humanity to pen ourselves up in high rise, low-environmental-impact cityscapes, and to let the earth go to a state of being absent of humanity? Why not help your cause and be the first to leave the earth to nature?
In other words: Go die, Hippie, and rid us of your annoying presence.
Thank you.

ethan

Matt Mallery says:
"Since wolves once roamed through ALL of Wyoming, what right do we humans have to say they can't do so again? Once again, ranchers get their way and the land suffers for it. Same thing since 1850."

I realize that this post of mine may be deleted by the editors, due to some insensitive content, but there are some things that must be said. I therefore invoke my right to free speech, which, as in the case of so many imbeciles throughout the history of the First Amendment, should not be infringed upon.

So, I say to Matt Mallery:
Humanity has every right to say they can't roam all of Wyoming--let alone all of the Western US--and the right to follow through and prevent them from doing so. From the beginning humanity has had this right. Without this right, we would not be at the top of the food chain: we would be hunted down and eaten right along with the deer and elk that the wolves consume the way a wildfire consumes the prairie grass.

Yes, the ranchers do get their way, and they damn well should. Which is more important: the livelihoods and property (and consequently the lives) of people in the areas in question or the livelihoods of wolves. Before you answer that on impulse, take into account that the beef or lamb that those ranchers produce goes to the supermarket where YOU buy it to eat. YOUR livelihood, no less YOUR LIFE depends on the continuation of ranching and farming, and what you may call the "occupation" or "rape" of the landscape by humanity.

No, the land does not suffer. You do not understand this because, though you have experienced and furthered the process just by living, you have not taken part at a visceral level in the replacement of wolves by humanity in the food chain. Much of the area that wolves once roamed is now unsuitable as habitat for them, because of the ways it has been irreversibly changed. But that irreversible change has benefitted humanity. As to wolves being necessary for the "balance of the ecosystem" well, that is just complete bullshit, and you know that as well as everyone who has ever eaten meat. Human hunters can, and have taken the place of wolves in many wilderness ecosystems through the rightful pursuance of the sport, or in some cases the necessity of hunting. Why would we need to bring wolves back into the picture, just to have them in competition with humanity? The last time this happened, the two species did not mix well, and so it was for a very legitimate reason that wolves were exterminated in the Lower 48 all those years back.

So, yes, humanity by right should and will limit the ranges and roamings of the wolves that have been reintroduced, keeping them penned up in wilderness areas and National Parks. You may revel in seeing them there any time you like. And this should satisfy you, along with any other greenie out there: if you simply want to have the "comforting" knowledge that there are wolves roaming the wild places in this country, please feel free to visit them in their habitat, under their terms (which would put you below them in the food chain) and see how it turns out.

Really though, if you are so passionate about having the earth in a state where human impact and presence is not to be felt, please feel free to sacrifice yourself to the hunger of the wolves for the good of the earth. After all, isn't that what you, and groups such as the Sierra Club want: for humanity to pen ourselves up in high rise, low-environmental-impact cityscapes, and to let the earth go to a state of being absent of humanity? Why not help your cause and be the first to leave the earth to nature?
In other words: Go die, Hippie, and rid us of your annoying presence.
Thank you.

Matt Mallery

Ethan,

Your arguments are so unreasonable I'm not sure where to begin. First of all, rather than killing myself or anyone else, what should happen is we humans should realize that we are not the only species on this planet, we share it, and therefore maybe we can do wildlife a favor and have smaller families and consume less, and lead simpler lives.We do not have the right to wipe out other species just so we can have everything cheaper and in greater quanity. Second, we taxpayers prop up the beef industry. Grazing fees are at an all time low, and taxpayes actually pay more to prop up ranchers than ranchers contribute to the economy. second, I don't eat beef. Third, a great deal of beef consumed in this country is from South America.

As far as visiting wolves to "see how it turns out", you are jumping on this unfounded, hysterical bandwagon that for some irrational reason still believes wolves eat people despite the fact that they do not. Not a single documented case of it. And I hope that Field and Stream does not delete your post because you make the case for your own sheer stupidity. It would be funny if not for the fact that idiots like you are in such large quanities. But us pro wolf folks are growing in number as well, so you'll have to get used to it.

Harold

First of all, to Matt:

We manage all the other species, usually with lethal controls, why not wolves? In this day and age, we cannot let any large animal reproduce without some sort of control, otherwise the whole system gets seriously out of balance. Elk, wild horses, antelope or wolves need to be cut back from time to time. Wolves, by the way, can get as lazy as people. They start to prefer the "slow elk" over the real thing. But don't worry, we'll still have plenty of wolves in the north-west portion of our state, which is mostly wilderness.

By the way posters, the next stop is the grizzly bear. Hopefully, it will be delisted sometime in the near future. In some areas of NW Wyoming, they are more deadly on elk than wolves. They're smart and have learned where elk cows go to have their calves. In some places they may be taking up to 75% of the elk calf crop.

Harold

ethan

Exactly as I thought. You're a granola-crunching hippie, and you think I should sacrifice my way of life "for the good of the earth." I don't think I will, but nobody is going to stop you from not reproducing. Something you have to understand that the average birthrate in the US is less than 2.0, which means that Americans are already having fewer kids. The only reason our population continues to grow is because of the massive amounts of immigration, both legal and illegal (illegals are another big problem, but we won't get into that here).

You are also mistaken about the source of beef: most beef eaten in the US does not come from South America: it comes from the cornbelt states of the Midwest.

I never said we should wipe out wolves, let alone that we ought to kill off any species. I just said wolves should be kept within the confines of wilderness areas and National Parks, for the purposes of preventing the bad mixing that goes on between people and wolves. I just don't want wolves leaving such areas and causing problems for farmers and ranchers that live and make their living around those areas.

While it may or may not be true that taxpayers prop up the beef industry, among many of the farming industries, you could help remedy that problem: Save a rancher; eat a cow.

Another thing I never said is that wolves eat humans. That's because we don't let them (at least, if we can help it). We invented weapons so we could kill them, and save ourselves, if and when they tried. But really? Not a single documented case? I think not. But then, who's been counting, and since when have those records been kept? Wolves and Humanity have lived together for millenia, and have never mixed well. As they are large, smart predators, it is highly likely that there have been many cases where wolves have eaten humans. In fact, try actually searching the records. You might find something in the annals of old that will shock you.

As to my "sheer stupidity," and the fact that "idiots" like me are in such large numbers, I have one thing to say: you have to realize that there must be some credence in what I have said, or this many people (which is actually a majority, whether the polls--God they are inaccurate!--say we are or not) would not take stock in it.

And you pro-wolf people can increase in number: I can deal with the fact that nobody can tell you what to believe. But the truth is that you refuse to believe the truth. You can't deal with it, because it shakes the foundations of your worldview.

ethan

That was directed at Matt Mallery, in case there is any doubt.

Tyler J

Very interesting post. My question to matt is how the government props up the beef industry? Don't believe everything you read on the Sierra Club website. What do you eat if not beef? And maybe some of our beef comes from south america, but don't you think they have some of the same issues with livestock depredation there? I agree wolves have an inctricate place in the ecosystem, but like all wild critters, their populations need to be controlled.

Aidan


I am an Idaho resident and avid elk and deer hunter. We have been living with the turmoil over wolves for years now. Most of this turmoil stems from the opposing sides being totally unwilling to compromise.
When Lewis and Clark came through the west there were vast numbers of deer, elk, wolves, and people. They had been more or less coexisting for thousands of years. Apparently, some sort of balance is possible.
Today, there are far more people and far less wilderness. The number of wolves is too high in many areas and causing conflicts. Responsible management is necassary, but unregulated hunting of wolves is only going to put management of wolves back in the hands of Fish and Wildlife service bureaucrats.

Black Rifle Addict

I haven't studied much about the wolf issue, but I guess it does illict some extreme feelings on both sides of the fence. I do believe we need to be wise with natural resources, and wild animals NEED to have a fear of man for there own long term protection!

MitchW

I live in the heart of wolf-central (that would be northern Minnesota) and one thing that I've never had a good explanation of is how, with the numbers of wolves that we have around here, are the whitetails multiplying like rats, the elk are destroying the farmers fields, and the moose are still hanging in? And yep, the farmers and ranchers here have problems with wolves. I've got friends here that swear up and down that the only good wolf is a dead one, and when I argue that every deer they kill is one less I'm hitting with my pickup, the response is invariably that they'd rather pay the insurance deductible than feed a wolf. Any ideas where this sort of mentality actually comes from?

MitchW

And be sure of this, if MN would finally open it up for a once-in-a-lifetime wolf hunt, I'd be sending in my app. the next day.

Matt Mallery

I'm all for managing wolves, but not for the sake of the ranchers, rather for the sake of the ecosystem. And ranchers have never done anything for the sake of the ecosystem. We taxpayers fund the so called "Wildlife Services" which does things like puts cynide canisters on public land, flies around in a helicopter and shoots animals, burns coyote pubs alive in their dens, etc. We subsidize the ranching industry through low grazing fees, we pay for planes to spray herbicide on native grasses that ranchers consider poor feed for their cattle, we pay for the seeding of non native grasses. The reason we cannot make headway in restoring the grizzly, jaguar, and prairie dog is because of ranchers and their opposition. And yes, there are several endangered species of prairie dogs and entire portions of the country where they are completly gone from their range.

As far as confining wovles to "wilderness areas", Wyoming has the lowest human population of any state and there is plenty of suitable habitat througout the state. Rather than confining wolves to wilderness, let's confine cattle to private land for change.

Ethan,

Sorry to through science at you,I know it's confusing. You keep calling me a hippie which shows you have a limited view of the world and feel a need to fit everyone that does not agree with you into some neat category or sterotype. This whole issue is actually an embarassment for the USA. We must look like a bunch of anti-science wildlife haters to the rest of the world.

Yes, human overpopulation is a real problem, but since we started killing wolves in the 1700s in this country long before we had 300 million people, we have to acknowledge that the real reason predators disappear is greed and fear. Ethan, please provide a case of wolves attacking people. Bigfoot supposedly attacks people too.

MPN

Matt Mallery,
I side with you on this.

Harold and ethan,
You both are wrong. We as humans can not take the role of wolves as predatory animlas. Harold you say the wolves get lazy and only go for slow elk? Helloooooooo the wolves go for the sick, old and weak animals as with most predatory animals. If you want to take the wolves place you need to hunt all the sick animals and make sure you eat it. We only hunt young and healthy animals, if there were no wolves left to hunt the sick, old and weak then all the herds of animals would be full of sick, old and weak individuals. As for your views that we as humans have the right to control everything is not right. If an animal population expands it's going where it wants to. Just think if we always want to control which animals go where soon we're gonna run into no animals left in certain areas. I would also like to point out that I don't get my meat from western ranchers all mine comes from the farmer down the raod. So no ethan my livelihood doesn't depend on ranchers. Maybe the ranchers should learn how to build electric fences around their cattle so the wolves don't get them. You wait the biggest flaw humans have is thinking they can control everything and are the "alpha predator". Let me put you in a cage with a grizzly with no gun or weapon. Hmmmmmmm I think I know who the alpha predator is. It's nice that you stick by what you believe but please understand it's not always about us, maybe for once we should think about the future instead of the present.

MPN




Our Blogs



Syndicate