Federals reject Wyoming's plan to kill wolves

[Stelok]

By BEN NEARY, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 9, 10:34 PM ET

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Wolves will remain protected for now in Wyoming, where officials want to manage the animals by killing some, even as they come off the endangered species list in five other states, federal officials said Friday.


Top state officials vowed to keep fighting the federal government in court over wolf management issues.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected a state proposal to allow the killing of some wolves to protect the state's elk herds. The agency wants to take wolves off the protected list in Wyoming, too, but not if the state insists on culling its population, according to a letter to state leaders from Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall.

"I think what the letter is telling the state is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone as far as we can possibly go on this," said Mitch King, the agency's regional director.

Wyoming House Speaker Roy Cohee said Friday's decision means wolf management legislation moving through both houses of the Legislature is moot.

"Basically what we were told, 'Take a hike and go look at your elk while they're still alive, because if the wolf population keeps growing, they're not going to be there that long,'" Wyoming Senate President John Schiffer said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service last year proposed creation of a permanent wolf management area in northwestern Wyoming. The agency last month announced a proposal to remove about 1,200 Rocky Mountain gray wolves from the endangered species list in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The agency has approved wolf management plans in Montana and Idaho, but rejected Wyoming's original management plan in 2004.

Last month, the Interior Department said it would remove about 4,000 wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin from the endangered and threatened species list within 30 day

[Dark_Shiki]

They need to leave wolves alone. They balanced out prey species, now that the top predators are in such lower numbers prey species will grow and overpopulate. At least that's what happens in the case of most deer. I don't know that the elk will suffer because of wolves due to lower numbers themselves, but they I don't think they're the primary source of food for them.

What really bothers me is the aerial gunning that's being done in alaska. That's a disgusting practice in my mind, and anyone who does it is frankly a p***y. I'd have a little more respect if you actually got down on the ground and fight the animal bare handed. JMO.~Angela

[Vaikyuko]

^While I think that shooting an animal from a helicopter is kind of the antithesis of a hunt, I wouldn't go so far as to have hunters instead fight them bare-handed. That's kind of suicidal in most cases, as man isn't known for sharp teeth or anything really physically useful, he's known for intellect.

Regardless, this is pretty retarded.

[Suiko Eiji]

Well, considering wolves were once near extinction and they were protected, the populations have come back. That's what the plan of protecting them in the first place was about, wasn't it?

I saw remove the wolves from the list but mandate that hunters are required to bring back a ratio, let's say 1:1 to start, of wolf for elk. For some, the added investment of having to invest in different chambered rifles, plus the prospect of having to bring enough ammunition for both types of weapons, might be enough to reduce some of the hunting population, balancing out with only the serious ones.

Hunting from helicopters is for killing people and/or elephants.

[Bernard_Monsha]

They need to leave wolves alone. They balanced out prey species, now that the top predators are in such lower numbers prey species will grow and overpopulate. At least that's what happens in the case of most deer. I don't know that the elk will suffer because of wolves due to lower numbers themselves, but they I don't think they're the primary source of food for them.

What really bothers me is the aerial gunning that's being done in alaska. That's a disgusting practice in my mind, and anyone who does it is frankly a p***y. I'd have a little more respect if you actually got down on the ground and fight the animal bare handed. JMO.~Angela

No the wolves do not go after the elk they go after the farmers livestock which is usually in an enlosed area and is easier to kill. Wolves are not stupid and will not pass up an easy meal for a more difficult and dangerous one. Several state governments have set up funds to cover livestock losses wich average about 1,600,000 dollars for cattle alone. These idiot wolf people are stupid and do not realize that the enviroment has changed and there are very few places that can support these animals on game alone.

The arial gunning in Alaska has to be done to keep the population down, kneejerk reaction to it does not change the fact that they will starve slowly over several months vs a quick death with a bullet.

[CrossboneGundam]

Well, considering wolves were once near extinction and they were protected, the populations have come back. That's what the plan of protecting them in the first place was about, wasn't it?

I saw remove the wolves from the list but mandate that hunters are required to bring back a ratio, let's say 1:1 to start, of wolf for elk. For some, the added investment of having to invest in different chambered rifles, plus the prospect of having to bring enough ammunition for both types of weapons, might be enough to reduce some of the hunting population, balancing out with only the serious ones.

Hunting from helicopters is for killing people and/or elephants.

But there isn't one wolf for every elk or deer. Wolves are vastly outnumbered by their prey species, no matter what proponents of killing them might like to say or believe. That plan would lead back to the flat out extinction scenario.

No the wolves do not go after the elk they go after the farmers livestock which is usually in an enlosed area and is easier to kill. Wolves are not stupid and will not pass up an easy meal for a more difficult and dangerous one. Several state governments have set up funds to cover livestock losses wich average about 1,600,000 dollars for cattle alone. These idiot wolf people are stupid and do not realize that the enviroment has changed and there are very few places that can support these animals on game alone.

The arial gunning in Alaska has to be done to keep the population down, kneejerk reaction to it does not change the fact that they will starve slowly over several months vs a quick death with a bullet.

Why would they need to keep the population of wolves down in Alaska?
I've not heard of a lack of prey species for wolves, bears, and other predators in Alaska.

Anyway, the idiot anti-wolf people are also stupid and constantly (at least in Oregon,) use pathetic arguments like that if wolves aren't destroyed they'll kill every last living creature and all the elk, deer, etc. will go extinct.

And there are plenty of wild places left (out here in the West, anyway,) it's not like it would be better for the wolves and all the other wild animals if we gave up on trying to fix our mistakes and just kill them all because it would be more "humane."

[Bernard_Monsha]

But there isn't one wolf for every elk or deer. Wolves are vastly outnumbered by their prey species, no matter what proponents of killing them might like to say or believe. That plan would lead back to the flat out extinction scenario.

Not so much now, there are not proper predator to prey ratios anymore due to habitat loss. There is a food supply readily available in domestic animals.



Why would they need to keep the population of wolves down in Alaska?
I've not heard of a lack of prey species for wolves, bears, and other predators in Alaska.

Actually the caribou population plummited bt 3/4 in the last 60 years and is very carefully managed by the Alaskan parks department. Any variation in the wolf population causes a ripple effect in the caribou herds and could crater them again.

Anyway, the idiot anti-wolf people are also stupid and constantly (at least in Oregon,) use pathetic arguments like that if wolves aren't destroyed they'll kill every last living creature and all the elk, deer, etc. will go extinct.

If they are managed like the herds in Alaska and Texas than game will become rarer but the wolves would not they will rove into less rural areas and kill livestock and people's pets. They already have presidence in other states were the wolves ignore game and go for the easy kill.

And there are plenty of wild places left (out here in the West, anyway,) it's not like it would be better for the wolves and all the other wild animals if we gave up on trying to fix our mistakes and just kill them all because it would be more "humane."

There are plenty of rural areas but they are not the wild places they were 100 years ago. Farmland has replaced the great plains the great forest are cris crossed with highways and dotted with towns. We could go back to just setting steel jawed traps for them and leaveing them to die that way. Just check them every couple of weeks.

[Suiko Eiji]

But there isn't one wolf for every elk or deer. Wolves are vastly outnumbered by their prey species, no matter what proponents of killing them might like to say or believe. That plan would lead back to the flat out extinction scenario.


1:1 was a start for my model, the ratio could be adjusted if needed.

[Dark_Shiki]

Usually, prey species generally are in higher numbers than that of predators, it's a sort of balancing act so that they don't consume their food faster than the prey can reproduce. Elk I'm not familiar with, but if they are in lower numbers, then it's likely caused by more than one factor.

I'm not saying that wolves don't affect other things like livestock and pets, because unfortunately they do. It happens to peoples' pets alot here in florida with gators. That's the risk that is taken when you live in in their neighborhood. The one thing that could help the conflict between wolves and ranchers is better deterrant methods. I would think something like electric fencing around pastures could protect livestock, and herding dogs are helpful too.

In the case of rogue animals, where they lose all fear of humans and often venture into urban areas, then either relocation or flat out destroying it are options that have to be decided on.

I'd just like to see a day where all our natural species could at least still have some hold in their world, even if there will be the occasional conflict.~Angela

[Bernard_Monsha]

Usually, prey species generally are in higher numbers than that of predators, it's a sort of balancing act so that they don't consume their food faster than the prey can reproduce. Elk I'm not familiar with, but if they are in lower numbers, then it's likely caused by more than one factor.

I'm not saying that wolves don't affect other things like livestock and pets, because unfortunately they do. It happens to peoples' pets alot here in florida with gators. That's the risk that is taken when you live in in their neighborhood. The one thing that could help the conflict between wolves and ranchers is better deterrant methods. I would think something like electric fencing around pastures could protect livestock, and herding dogs are helpful too.

In the case of rogue animals, where they lose all fear of humans and often venture into urban areas, then either relocation or flat out destroying it are options that have to be decided on.

I'd just like to see a day where all our natural species could at least still have some hold in their world, even if there will be the occasional conflict.~Angela


Alligators were not reintroduced to Florida like these wolves have been. Wolves have been absent for the better part of a century in most of these places