Can We Conclude There Are More Wolves?

52 Responses to “Can We Conclude There Are More Wolves?”

1. Jim Richards on December 6th, 2008 10:15 am

   Most animals that are not hunted loses it’s fear of man. This is common knowledge.
   Until we start the hunting of Wolves they will become even more bold and destructive not only to wildlife but domestic stock as well. This includes your family pet.

2. Greg Farber on December 6th, 2008 11:20 am

   Yesterday a friend who has never hunted, and loves to hike and backpack only, bought a 45 ACP for self defense on the trails in the wilderness places he frequents, he said I like wolves, but not enough to feed myself to them. A lot of folks these days who still hike are packing pistols now. We can not land lock elk and then dump un-managed wolves amongst them and expect it to just work. It’s failing, and it is gonna get worse. Some body listened to the wrong PHDs.

3. Scott Miller on December 8th, 2008 1:52 pm

   I have a hard time with this Western states argument that wolves are cleaning out the game as opposed to things like weather and habitat. I wonder what the difference is between MN with so many more wolves and Montana, Idaho, Wyoming with so few. Minnesota has almost a thousand more wolves than all other states in the lower 48 combined. In Northeast MN where the majority of wolves are, more than half of the hunting sections allow 5 deer to be taken. North of Duluth, there was also a special antlerless season in October that took another 1200 deer in two days. Near Ely (and Canadian Border), section 116 has traditionally been a lottery for an antlerless tag but this year, even that section has moved to one deer per hunter, either sex. The reason for 116 being a lottery was that wolves historically have been able to keep pace with the deer herd. No more. The single biggest factor in MN for deer or no deer is winter weather.

   Check out our DNR site to see how many deer hunters can take in a 3 week season in NE MN where approximately 3000 wolves roam. Go to the end of the document for that particular map.

   http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/regs/hunting/2008/zonemap.pdf

   Also, here is an article on MN wolves. Wtih all these wolves living here, you would think there would be more (any) wolf human interactions. Other than dogs and livestock, wolves leave humans alone. In fact, to see one in the wild is like winning the lottery. While hunting, camping or fishing I’ve never seen a wolf in the wild.

   Wolf Population Expansion in Minnesota

   William Berg and Todd Fuller
   Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
   Populations and federal status updated by IWC December

   Wolves were bountied in Minnesota from 1849, when they were worth $3, through 1965 (when all bounties ended in Minnesota), when a bountied wolf pelt brought $35. Although bounties generally did not control populations of other predators, they had an impact on wolves. By the early 1900s, wolves were rare in southern and western Minnesota. By the 1950s, wolves were gone from these areas of the state.

   A wolf study conducted by Milt Stenlund in the early 1950s centered on a portion of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota. After extrapolation to the rest of northern Minnesota, Stenlund’s data indicated a population of 450-700 wolves, most of which resided in 12,000 square miles of main wolf range.

   Through the early 1960s, wolf numbers were likely stable (see Minnesota Wolf Population Trend graph below). From 1953 to 1965, about 190 wolves were bountied annually, and bounty claims gradually decreased outside the main range — suggesting that fewer wolves existed. One estimate in 1963 put Minnesota’s wolf population at 350-700. After the bounty ended in 1965, wolves could still be legally trapped and hunted year-round in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) records indicate that about 250 wolves were killed annually until 1974, when wolves became completely protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.

   In the mid-1970s, biologist L. David Mech extrapolated the wolf densities from three study areas in Minnesota to the known wolf range at that time and estimated a population of 1,000-1,200. During the winter of 1978-1979 field personnel from several resource management agencies were queried by the MN DNR. Their knowledge, combined with results from four radio-tracking studies, resulted in a state-wide population estimate of 1,235 wolves. This figure persisted as the official population estimate for ten years. In the early 1980s work by Mech, Steve Fritts and Bill Paul identified areas of newly colonized wolf range that suggested range and population were expanding to the west and south.

   In winter 1988-1989, the methodology of the MN DNR’s 1978-1979 survey was repeated, using an even larger sample of natural resource agencies and personnel, as well as incorporating geographic computer technology. As a check, a second method used the well-established relationship between densities of wolves and ungulates — in Minnesota’s case, deer and moose, to estimate wolf numbers. Both methods estimated the wolf population at between 1,500 and 1,750. There were at least 233 wolf packs, with the average pack size being five. This survey identified about 23,000 square miles of existing and potential wolf range.

   The DNR wolf survey was repeated in the winter of 1997-98, using an even larger base of natural resource professionals and applying more advanced GIS technology. That survey estimated a population of 2,450 wolves residing in a contiguous pack range of about 34,000 square miles. A total of 385 packs existed in the contiguous range, in addition to several west and south of the “new” wolf range.

   The successful recolonization of vacant wolf habitat over a span of three decades resulted from high deer densities, wolves dispersing from existing packs, and wolves colonizing new areas. This has been documented in all wolf telemetry studies done in Minnesota. All colonization of new areas has been done by the wolves themselves, unlike some states where wolves have been reintroduced by natural resource agencies. While some wolves dispersed to new areas from the major wolf range identified in 1978, others dispersed from the very few scattered packs in north central Minnesota that survived the bounty era. An example is one pack that the MN DNR had ear-tagged or radio-collared from 1969 to 1980, which occupied a 100-square-mile area southeast of Hill City. Besides being partly responsible for the eventual startup of five neighboring packs, the Hill City pack sent dispersers to Boy River, Walker, Hinckley and Baudette, distances ranging from about 28 to 135 miles.

   Populations of white-tailed deer, the main prey of wolves in Minnesota, benefited from many mild winters and accelerated timber harvests over the years. These factors, which reduce winter-caused mortality and create more suitable habitat, allowed the deer herd to increase most years, even in the main wolf range. In Minnesota, each wolf takes the equivalent of 18 to 20 adult sized deer per year on average. Based on this average, wolves kill the equivalent of about 40,000 deer per year, compared to deer hunters, who have taken 60,000-80,000 deer across the entire wolf range through the 1995 deer season. But then, winters got much worse. The 1995-96 and 1996-97 winters set records for their severity, and deer numbers decreased by about half. Consequently, deer hunters took about 25,000 deer (all bucks) in 1996 in the Minnesota wolf range, while wolves, whose numbers remained unchanged, continued to take about 40,000 deer.

   When prey populations fluctuate dramatically, predator numbers usually follow, and wolf numbers stabilized (if not slightly decreased) following the deer decline, albeit temporarily. The winters of 1997-98 through 1999-2000 were among the mildest on record, thereby allowing the deer and the wolf population to again increase. By 1999, the deer hunter harvest had increased to 73,000 deer, and the wolf scent station index (DNR’s annual index of the wolf population) rose to a new record for Minnesota.

   How many more wolves can Minnesota hold? And how should wolves be managed? Wolf populations increased about 6% annually in the 1970s, about 3% annually in the 1980s. All indications are that those increases have continued during the 1990s, and about 4.5% currently. Annual increases of this magnitude can be equated to compounding bank interest in a savings account, and doubling your money (or wolf populations) every 15 to 20 years. Wolf range, as well, continues to increase. Much of the unoccupied and potential range identified in the 1988-1989 survey, and even many areas deemed unsuitable for wolves, now contain wolf singles, pairs or packs. Some wolves are surviving in areas with higher road densities (more than one mile of road per square mile of area) and human densities (more than ten people per square mile) than identified as critical to wolf survival in 1988-1989. Wolf packs have even colonized Camp Ripley in Morrison County. Dispersal continues to areas as distant as the west-central and south-eastern part of the state, the northern Minneapolis/St. Paul outer suburbs, as well as North and South Dakota. Thus, wolves seem to be adapting more to humans and, perhaps due to more education about wolves, humans are becoming more accepting of the wolf’s presence. The most wolves that the MN DNR believes Minnesota can sustain without increased wolf-human conflicts is about 2000.

   The 1992 Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan established a population goal for Minnesota of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves by the year 2000. By the early 1980s, Minnesota had already reached that goal and by the late-1990s had nearly doubled that number. With the recovery of the wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may soon reclassify the wolf in these populations

   For more information on the reclassification and delisting of the gray wolf, visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Web site.

   For an updated map of Minnesota wolf range, visit the MN DNR wolf information page.

4. Tom Remington on December 8th, 2008 2:56 pm

   Scott – There are several differences when making comparisons. What kind of deer are in Minnesota? Whitetail or mule or both? Are there elk? What are the differences in available habitat? Etc., etc. etc,

   This comparison is attempted often and in all honesty there is not a lot that can be compared as the same.

   If Idaho, Wyoming and Montana had all the necessary and available habitat, etc. that would support a thriving elk and deer population, there also would be fewer problems or complaints about the wolves.

5. Mike L. on December 10th, 2008 10:51 pm

   Tom,
   I think that a herd of elk are easier for a pack to be successful on rather than a single deer, at least with a herd of elk the wolves have a little better chance chasing say 5 – 10 animals than they would trying to corner 1 or 2.

6. Lee on December 20th, 2008 12:14 am

   Tom – Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as well as several other western states, would have lots more habitat for deer, elk, sage grouse, prairie dogs, pronghorn, coyotes, wolves, bear, and cougar if they were not dominated by the cattle and sheep industries with their foreign ungulates decimating public range. The cost of running the program costs far more than the monies generated . About 300,000,000 acres of public land permitted for grazing by 20,000 ranchers.

7. Greg Farber on December 20th, 2008 9:43 am

   Thats amazing Lee, Lets get this straight now, before the Buffalo were almost gone, those big wild cattle roaming this wide open range musta destroyed the habitat….then along comes ranching….1700s 1800s 1900s to date…other than PREDATOR problems hurting wild game, for example the protection of cougers in Idaho in the Elmer Keith Era 1920s 1930s when Idaho did buy elk from Montana to replace them….thanks to the over protected COUGER…150+ years of cattle raising ruined the habitat in the States mentioned, Idaho/Wyoming/Montana….IT JUST DIDN”T APPEAR TO BE A PROBLEM UNTIL THE LAST 14 YEARS….And riding thru 40 years of grass in idaho’s mountains and ranges that rubbed on my stirups was just my imagination…WHAT THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKIN BOY…..

8. Greg Farber on December 20th, 2008 10:33 am

   Lee,

   Read this blog I did last summer, I think it shows pollution is the culprit hurting habitat not men working ranches and their cattle. If the cattle/sheep decimated the habitat, then rotations of herds over the last 150+ years was a wasted effort….because upon returning to other grazing lots in the rotations there would be nothing for the cattle/sheep to eat, that proves you wrong right there, this attack on Ranchers and animals is nothing more than bad science attempting to destroy freedom/Liberty….and a good steak on my plate.
   http://blog.sunvalleyonline.com/index.php/2008/07/27/trails-in-the-sky-keep-on-falling-and-killing-trees/
   It’s not the Ranchers and its not their Cattle. Stop spreading lies Lee.

9. Lee on December 20th, 2008 7:20 pm

   Nice post Scott. I have frequently used the Minnesota DNR site.

   Greg,
   There were few bison west of the Rockies, silly.
   In the east – how many cows per acre; in the west how many acres per cow?
   For the west the answer is too many acres!

   I though the only meat you ate was game; not Idaho beef steaks.

   You had better speak to the following people who are also spreading “lies”

   Mike Hudak, PhD,

   Livestock production has turned much of our western lands into degraded vestiges of their past glory. Some of that land is private and its owners are under no obligation to change their use of it. But much of the West is federal public land, and the grazed portion of it constitutes a region larger than eight times the area of New York state—roughly 260 million acres. As U.S. citizens we have a voice in how these lands are managed. Yet, the voices of the 26,300 ranchers who hold the grazing permits on these lands are heard above all others.

   These ranchers’ political clout brings them roughly $500 million annually in taxpayer subsidies, allowing them to off-load many of their business expenses, such as providing water, protection and forage for their livestock. But the real tragedy of their enterprise is the suffering and death that it brings to millions of animals.

   But the greatest harm of the public lands ranching industry is visited upon the native wildlife of numerous species: fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Some, like the coyote and mountain lion are targeted by the livestock industry’s “hired guns,” the government agency known as Wildlife Services. At taxpayer expense, roughly 300 mountain lions, 1,700 bobcats, 85,000 coyotes and several thousand other animals are shot, trapped or poisoned every year to make our public lands “safe” for the livestock industry.

   Whether it is the diversion of waters that deplete streams, the construction of fences that thwart migration, the manipulation of forage that removes a natural food source or the many other actions that make livestock production profitable on public lands, the livestock industry is at the root of actions that kill wildlife.

   One significant measure of livestock industry impacts are the number of wildlife species on public lands that have been listed as Threatened, Endangered or proposed for listing and that are known, or suspected, to be harmed by practices of the livestock industry. In Montana: it is 17 species, Utah: 19, Colorado: 20, Idaho: 23, Oregon: 38, New Mexico: 66, California: 71, Nevada: 75, and in Arizona: 86.

   George Wuerthner

   I began to re-assess my views on ranching as a result of my college experiences. As an undergraduate, I studied wildlife biology and botany. Then I went to graduate school in range science hoping to get a job as a range conservationist with the government. In other words, I was not inherently hostile to livestock production or ranching. But as I looked more and more at the ultimate causes of many western environmental issues, I kept coming back to one industry—the livestock industry. I came to conclude that the cumulative environmental effects of this industry easily outstrip all others, hence my conversion to a grazing activist.

   For many years, the federal grazing fee has been set at $1.35 [per animal unit month, inludes 1cow & calf]–less than it costs to feed a gerbil for a month.

   While there are hundreds of millions of acres devoted to growing cows, the amount of employment, income and economic activity that results is nearly insignificant. And since this activity is anything but benign, it often occurs at the expense of other western resources such as fisheries, wildlife, watersheds, recreation, scenery, biodiversity and ecological processes – all of which have tremendous economic value well beyond the tiny contribution made by the livestock industry. Indeed, as University of Montana professor of economics Thomas Power argues, in the changing West of today, these quality-of-life resources are the engines driving modem economic activity.

   There are several ploys used by livestock advocates to distort the value of public lands ranching to the West’s economy. One method used to overstate the importance of public lands to the West’s ranching industry is to count the total number of animals that graze on public lands, no matter how short a period of time, rather than the amount of forage contributed by those lands. Thus if a cow grazes on federal lands for even one day, it is counted as a public lands-dependent grazing animal – even though the contribution of public lands forage to the annual production is small.

   Livestock production is anything but benign. It is the number one source for water pollution in the West. It’s the number one source of soil erosion in the West. It’s the number one cause of species endangerment in the West. It’s the reason we don’t have wolves throughout the West. It’s one of the major reasons that more than four-fifths of all native fish west of the Continental Divide are endangered or threatened.

   Indeed, I think wolf recovery might be more successful if we focused more on bringing wolves back to the edges of our cities rather than putting them among rural communities. After all there is far more support for wolves hence tolerance among urban dwellers than among rural residents. I’m not suggesting that wolves be placed in Central Park, but within a reasonable distance of our major urban areas there is an abundance of prey, and enough woodlands and forest to provide some habitat fragmented though it may be. I believe wolves might prosper better in western Massachusetts than in northern Maine. Right now in Massachusetts, there are few farms, and deer are so plentiful that hunters can kill a dozen or more a year.

   Similar situations exist in many other parts of the country. They may well do better in southern New York than in the Adirondacks. Maybe they should be restored to the national forest lands outside of Portland and Denver rather than in the “wilder” parts of these states like Oregon’s Blue Mountains or Colorado’s San Juan Mountains. The real factor that seems to determine wolf success is not roads per square mile, but rednecks/cows per square mile. With few farms and ranches, and fewer rednecks, maybe wolves will experience a higher survival rate in our more urbanized regions than they do now in rural areas. Give wolves half a chance, and we can restore them as a major evolutionary force but only if we are willing to challenge the assumptions and attitudes that are jeopardizing wolf recovery today. If we are going to recover the wolf, we need to learn how to live with the wolf, not merely relegate it to a few “reservations” we call national parks.

   Buffalo Field Campaign
   The Montana Board of Livestock has made its decision on a Brucellosis Management Plan to regain Montana’s brucellosis-free status. A heavy focus is placed upon actively managing elk. Cattle ranchers in seven counties in southwest Montana are only required to test their cattle for brucellosis (Brucella abortus) anti-bodies. The cattle industry is forcing native wildlife off the land while they seek to have Montana taxpayers foot the bill; a whopping $2.4 million a year.

   Outlined in the plan, if the rancher requests it, a cattle herd management plan will be done at taxpayer expense. The Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) as well as the state’s wildlife management agency, Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) will provide personnel and assistance. FWP will be required to send out staff to haze (chase) elk off cattle ranches, while also providing ranchers game-proof fencing.

   Apparently, cattle ranchers can’t manage their own private lands.

   Furthermore, there is looming discussion of reducing the Madison Valley elk population by 3,000 animals in an effort to further subsidize cattle interests. These are the same voices that complain that wolves are eating all the elk.

   This latest plan is another aspect of the brucellosis fraud narrative; the ranchers get additional control over native wildlife and we the taxpayers pick up the tab, while FWP acts at the behest of the cattle industry, wasting money better spent on acquiring habitat for wildlife. Cattle ranchers are not interested in disease control, but bison and elk control.

   Michael J. Robinson

   Wolves were exterminated from the American West by a concerted campaign mounted by federal hunters and funded with local, state, and federal revenues. Using poison, traps, and bullets, the government pursued each wolf with the avowed goal of wiping the species off the face of the Earth.

   The livestock industry was the sole beneficiary of, and the greatest political impetus for, this campaign. Today, the livestock industry stands at the heart of the opposition to wolf recovery and has blocked, hampered, and sabotaged reintroduction programs throughout the West. Unfortunately, the industry’s political clout has profoundly shaped wolf recovery programs that are supposed to be guided by science.

   Wolf reintroduction in the northern Rocky Mountains of Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho was contested by the livestock industry and its supporters in Congress for over two decades. Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat for a listed species is supposed to be designated, and the species protected from being killed-whether it is reintroduced or recovering through natural recolonization. However, because of the power of the livestock industry, the plan to reintroduce wolves to parts of Idaho and Wyoming resulted in a compromise that designated the wolves as an “experimental, nonessential” population. This designation meant there would be no special protections for wolf habitat and that wolves that preyed on livestock would be killed or removed from the wild. Thus, although wolves are a federally listed endangered species, their containment and control by the federal government constitutes one more subsidy that taxpayers provide the livestock industry in the West.

   In all too many wild places, however, politics precludes recovery efforts even before such conflicts may arise. The livestock industry has so far successfully delimited not only the terms of wolf recovery but also where wolves will be allowed to roam. Thus, the southern Rockies of northern New Mexico, Colorado, and southern Wyoming have been excluded from wolf recovery consideration because the Colorado Wildlife Commission, an appointed body dominated by ranchers, browbeat the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into omitting this region.

   The conflict between the livestock industry and wolf recovery is more deeply rooted than the seemingly simple question of how to protect stock from predators. For even though a handful of ranchers-representing a tiny minority of the industry as a whole-have forsworn killing wolves and pledged themselves to living with the species, their cattle still displace elk, deer, and other native prey animals. Each blade of grass eaten by a cow means that much less for elk, and each cow shipped to market represents the removal from the ecosystem of hundreds of pounds of biomass that would otherwise take the form of deer, elk, moose, or pronghorn-all of which wolves might otherwise eat.

10. Greg Farber on December 20th, 2008 11:03 pm

    Do I have to answer all that ? After a knapp first. I will eat organic beef once in awhile…Prime Rib…or Tenderloin…WOW, that reminds me, I need to thaw out an organic Beef Tenderloin this week…You could explain all the half rotted Buffalo Skulls I have found in Idaho and Wyoming Mountains, mostly in the 60s and 70s…Skull caps and horn stubs left intact…loved finding those things, while shed antler hunting and the wide open Idaho Prairie below the Snake River as well, old rotting not much left of them Buffalo Skulls….when we were kids finding one was huge…

11. Lee on December 20th, 2008 11:27 pm

    Greg, I did not say there were no bison west of the Rockies, only a few. The former great grasslands of the midwest supported millions. “Buffalo Skulls….when we were kids finding one was huge…” such a rarity could be remembered out of proportion to the numbers which actually lived there in the past.
    Just as a matter of terminology, I have never considered skulls to be half rotted, meat rots, bones decompose slowly! While in Montana I used to place skulls of various critters on ant nests to clean off the flesh for my skull collection.
    In case you don’t revisit your suggested blog, there is no such compound as cis-dichloromethane. I can explain why.

12. Lee on December 21st, 2008 12:01 am

    Tom Remmington says , “If Idaho, Wyoming and Montana had all the necessary and available habitat, etc. that would support a thriving elk and deer population, there also would be fewer problems or complaints about the wolves.”
    So you are saying that these states do not have the necessary habitat for these ungulates? Habitat is missing? How come?

    Also, Ii would be convenient to have numbers on the posts so we could mention them more easily. That is a change you have made that I feel does not serve well.

13. Greg Farber on December 24th, 2008 8:34 pm

    That post specifically attacks the commercial beef ranchers and leads into the Buffalo Field Campaign Agenda. It appears those particular ranchers via problem creation, support wolves rather than their own industry itself. While appearing to be against the ESA hmmmm..It would be interesting to know how long some of those business owners have owned those ranches involved in those strategy’s….I smells double dealing….Of course it is also UnConstitutional for the Federal Government to own State Lands in any of the fifty states….AND I CAN PROVE IT, as well when states were true independent Sovereign states those de-jure citizens of those states owned all those lands….in question, The theory that all these “public” lands belongs to others outside the actual state the land is in is another Federal Chaotic creation based on trespass by Feds themselves…..The states need to get back to 10th Amendment Status and kick the fed out once and for all, as all this psuedo science is complete bunkum….it all boils down to CONTROL. And they will make up any damn thing they want, shine it up all pretty, and sell it to suckers who are born every minute….Constitutional Subversion by Europeans….

14. jes on December 25th, 2008 9:50 am

    Lee, I just wonder about why someone like you would want to “sabotage” a hunting site, with your asinine observations, and your “cut and paste” agenda taken from any and all internet sites that are in opposition to hunters and what they are, and are working for?….. Was your daddy a hunter who beat you when you were a child? Or are you being paid to do this by an anti-hunting organization? It seems like you are a child with limited understanding, and an adult’s ability to find sites that keep reflecting your anti-hunting stance…Have you ever asked yourself questions that you may need to keep repressed for the sake of your own sanity? Maybe you just need a friend that you can “open up” to…and quit bugging people just to get the attention you need.

    By the way, have a merry Christ Mass…and a Happy New Year to all!

15. Lee on December 25th, 2008 9:27 pm

    jes,
    Again, I am not against hunting!

    The 4 quotes above were not from non-hunters, three are from anti “welfare ranching” positions and one is from a group that wants to allow bison on public range outside of Yellowstone National Park so bison can come out of the park during the winter and not be slaughtered, as is the case now. Why not have range outside YNP where hunters could harvest native bison? All 4 comments are in support of more wild game.

    I am opposed to leasing out nearly all western public lands for grazing cattle and sheep. Obviously if the cows eat the forage it diminishes the amount present for all native wildlife. Cattle brought brucellosis to our elk and bison. Sheep brought pneumonia to our bighorns. The point being: fewer cows; more elk, deer, prairie dogs, . . . . wildlife.

    In my opinion Minnesota had a good management plan and probably wolves will be delisted in the Western Great Lakes soon. Hopefully ID, WY, MT will come up with plans that are acceptable.

    jes, find one site that I have quoted “that keeps reflecting” my ” anti-hunting stance”. Being anti-cow is not anti-hunting, being pro-predator is not anti-hunting.

    There are hunters in the NRM and the WGL that also support wolves.

    I am for predators including wolves in our ecosystems. That is why I post here.

16. Lee on December 25th, 2008 11:00 pm

    Greg,
    What type if hypothesis is this? “It appears those particular ranchers via problem creation, support wolves rather than their own industry itself. While appearing to be against the ESA hmmmm..It would be interesting to know how long some of those business owners have owned those ranches involved in those strategy’s….I smells double dealing….” ? ? ? and more? ? Wild speculation on yur part?

    And what do you think is the AGENDA of the Buffalo Field Campaign? I would think you would support hunting more and different native wildlife!

    Regarding public land. There were two primary reasons I moved back west from Maine: black flies and public lands. In the East virtually all land is privately owned. In Maine the coastline is privately owned to low tide; there is Baxter State Park of 200,000 acres and a few smaller ones; a small, sandy Reid State Park on the coast; Acadia National Park with about 36,000 acres; a small National Forest shared with NH; a few lighthouses on the rocky coast.

    Nothing like the West where you can ride, hike, drive, hunt, or float for miles through public land. Had it been transferred to the states it would probably no longer exist in large blocks; no Frank Church, Bob Marshall, Scapegoat, Sawtooth, or Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness areas. No wild rivers to float. No Clearwater National Forest. Instead more corporate lands like Potlatch where they now charge for the use of their lands by hunters, fishers, hikers, and huckleberry gatherers. I am thankfull that the feds own millions of acres in the West; where I can ride from the Selway Craigs down Split Creek to the Lochsa and pluck huckleberries along the way.

17. Greg Farber on December 26th, 2008 9:48 am

    To assume the individual states would have self destructed if left Sovereign is backwards thinking…take out the Federal control of the last 100 years of public dumb you down indoctrination via Rockefeller and his puppet John Dewey, who intentionally retarded mental growth in order to lead Americans down this Prim Rose path of federal god government control is best, utter nonsense and the mental retardation and utter failings of the federal government proves it daily…do some real research….it is easy to see….To assume the sates would not have protected those pristine special places other wise known as Wilderness Areas is redundant. Those places would be fine today, and probably in better condition….YES, it was a good Idea to let the Federally Controlled-oops U.N. controlled Forest Sevice to cut roads all over Idaho…and remove 10+ Billion in timber from my home state alone….YEP, real good idea there…..Then those FEDERALLY FUNDED damns all over the place, which we never needed and NIKOLA TESLA and HENRY MORAY proved that little secret didn’t they. Study Tesla closer, AND Morays “The Sea of Energy the Earth Floats In.” So you can assume what you will, Lee, I will still disagree….WHEN a CORPORATION which is what the United States Government is and has been for decades….and it uses deceptions to attain its goals….And the 14th Amendment from 1868 was and is a deception….used to crush the powers of the 10th Amendment, giving all power to a DE-Facto King….Along with its never ratified 17th Amendment…helping Congress set up treatises and subverting the Constitution illegally….makes one ponder a bit….if all this nonsense of federal hocu-pocus and U.N. Charters is such a great Idea—-and good for us all—-THEN WHY LIE ABOUT IT, WHY NOT TELL AMERICANS THE TRUTH RIGHT UP FRONT WHY THIS IS SO GOOD FOR YOU AND ME…AND THEM…

    You believe a liars lies Lee….

18. Lee on December 26th, 2008 10:27 pm

    Greg,

    About managing state lands for schools and a bit of history on how come it is the way it is.

    http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=69432

    Greg says
    “To assume the sates would not have protected those PRISTINE NATURAL PLACES other wise known as Wilderness Areas is redundant.”

    Your statement makes no sense. Redundant? Explain, please!

    Show me one state that has large tracts of STATE LAND that you can ride your horse over in the west , nothing comes close to the Bob or Church!
    You can say it might have been better if the states had the control but I have seen no indication that this is true.

    I support federal land management over state on most western public lands.

19. Lee on December 26th, 2008 10:54 pm

    jes,
    No comment on the lilly white hands of a wannabe in Maine doing split lath, or with an outhouse in Montana, not living their own life, nor the non-existant cut and paste of anti hunting sites?
    You attack, but rarely respond.

20. jes on December 28th, 2008 8:35 am

    Too busy hunting.., A-hole…..I don’t get off on trying to punch holes in the truth. We have enough problems because of people like you. Too bad you have never found “The Truth”….then you could open your eyes to see truth, and recognize it! As it is, you’re nothing but a prick in the side of those who do.

21. Lee on December 28th, 2008 12:12 pm

    jes
    That must mean that you believe you have found “The Truth”!

22. jes on December 28th, 2008 2:08 pm

    Found it and do my best to live it, and keep it as the master of my heart and mind.
    Maybe it’s about time you started looking ……..and finding. Next, you’re going to pull a Nicodemus on me and ask the question of the lost…..

23. Lee on December 28th, 2008 11:20 pm

    Very noble!
    Sounds like preaching from a hollier than thou know it all.
    Don’t start spouting biblical fables to support your claims.

24. jes on December 29th, 2008 5:41 am

    Typical attitude…..needs adjustment..Wonder what “claims” you are referring to? I needn’t wonder…The only thing I said was that I had found the truth. That is only infuriating to those who haven’t…and won’t look for truth. Because they don’t believe in God or His truth…And the reason they don’t believe, is because they don’t want to, because then they would see the error and the sin of their ways….And then their eyes would be opened and their ears would hear, and they would be healed.

25. Lee on December 29th, 2008 11:36 am

    This is your claim “Next, you’re going to pull a Nicodemus on me and ask the question of the lost…..” And since I am not a student of the bible it means nothing to me.

26. jes on December 29th, 2008 8:09 pm

    Maybe it’s about time it did.

27. George on December 29th, 2008 10:36 pm

    You couldn’t be a bible student if you wanted. You picked it up once and tried to read it but the words made no sense to you? You have to be born again. To be borne again you have to be exposed to God’s Word. I would suggest a good God fearing Bible Church. But You chose neither, you should be careful that you do not say more to fuel your demise.
    Yes you are right, being one of God’s elect automatically puts you on the path of righteousness.

28. Lee on December 30th, 2008 9:48 pm

    George,
    You are out of your mind to suggest ” a good God fearing Bible Church”! ‘Tis an oxymoron. Why should any church fear God?

    “You should be careful that you do not say more to fuel your demise.” Everyone has a demise

29. George on December 30th, 2008 10:08 pm

    Luke 12:49 – 53 Your right about the demise It’s your choice Everlasting lasting life or Death. I chose life and I have faith in the promises of God. If you want to start a Bible class Jes and I will direct you.

30. Lee on December 30th, 2008 10:12 pm

    George,
    You are out of your mind to suggest ” a good God fearing Bible Church” to me! ‘Tis an oxymoron. Why should any church fear God? Another reason I don’t patronize any of them.

    “You should be careful that you do not say more to fuel your demise.” Everyone has a demise; if you think otherwise you are deluded by your unfounded beliefs, probably handed to you by your ancestors. Had you been born in China or Zambia it is highly unlikely that you would hold your current religious beliefs.

    jes,
    “I don’t get off on trying to punch holes in the truth. ” Sorry, but I am working at punching holes in false premises. My posts have much more substance and less conjecture than most of yours.

31. Lee on December 30th, 2008 10:21 pm

    jes,
    An example of your conjecture:….. Was your daddy a hunter who beat you when you were a child? Or are you being paid to do this by an anti-hunting organization? It seems like you are a child with limited understanding, and an adult’s ability to find sites that keep reflecting your anti-hunting stance…Have you ever asked yourself questions that you may need to keep repressed for the sake of your own sanity? Maybe you just need a friend that you can “open up” to”.

    You still haven’t sited the anti hunting posts you accused me of using.

    Greg Farber has never found those 200,000 elk population numbers for Idaho back in the 1990’s either.

32. George on December 30th, 2008 10:23 pm

    There is only truth in God’s word you should fear him because of your actions.
    1 Corinthians chapter 10

33. Lee on December 30th, 2008 10:41 pm

    George and jes, will you direct me in the teaching of evolution, plate tectonics, the value of biodiversity, of complex ecosystems, of human overpopulation and exploitation?

    Lets look at the real world – not a mythical one.

34. George on December 30th, 2008 10:46 pm

    2 Timothy 2: 23-26 Do not have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they cause quarrels. 24 And the lords servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to every one, able to teach not resentful. 25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth 26 and they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will

35. Lee on December 30th, 2008 11:03 pm

    George, that answered nothing. Spouting the bible does nothing to convince me that you are correct or that I do not have legitimate concerns about the condition of the world. I lsuppose it gives you a sense of superiority and a foot in the door to heaven. Once a species is gone it is gone forever. Millions of years of evolution down the drain. What a waste because of human arrogance and greed!

36. George on December 30th, 2008 11:12 pm

    If you are right, and there is no God…then that is all there is to it. There is no God. I die and…nothing. It ends there. This is why sometimes I don’t understand the Atheists who are so zealous and find a need to convince/convert others to believe as they do because we will all eventually find out if you were right in the end.

    What I am, is a by the ‘Book’ Believer. My breed is out there. We are genuine in our Faith. We do share the Message because we have been commended to do so. I think that to a fault, we are too quiet. We should rise up and call out the counterfeit. Why we don’t, I’ll never quite understand.

    Yet the Bible -as I believe it- is a revelation of God given to us; how we relate to Him, how He relates to us, how we have come along, what we have done, and what He has done/will do for us/to us, how to know Him, how He calls us to live, etc, etc. It is a very personal testimony of God that we must take and consider; to accept or reject.

    My acceptance gives me a personal inner peace and joy. The “real world” that you speak of will never be understood by me you or anyone else. Only God understands as it is all his creation. My goal is to bring glory to God, not to my own importance. I gave up attempting to look at the real world because I’m just a handful of dust passing through this existence. My true home will be with God in his New Jerusalem!

37. George on December 30th, 2008 11:19 pm

    Why do you go to so much trouble opposing something you don’t believe in?

38. Lee on December 30th, 2008 11:19 pm

    George,
    And who decides the arguement is or is not valid for discussion ? “Do not have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they cause quarrels”. Something like “God spoke to me about this issue and she said it is stupid .” Get real.

39. George on December 30th, 2008 11:26 pm

    1 Timothy 6:20-21 Turn away from Godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in doing so have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you

40. George on December 30th, 2008 11:40 pm

    Sir Isaac Newton was aided greatly in his endeavors by his belief in an ordered universe created by a God of order. Thus he could write, “It is the perfection of God’s works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion.”

    He saw no incompatibility between his Christian faith and the purity of his science, as one complemented the other. “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence,” he wrote.

    In my experience, no worldview has a monopoly on dimwits. I have run into obtuse minds among Christians, Jews, and athiests, just as I have known fine minds in all of these categories. I am little impressed by the pseudo-sophistication of our intellectual elites, with their pretenses of moral superiority.

    Give me an honest, hardworking man or woman over a self-important academic any day.

    In the end, the important truths of life are accessible to all, not just to the worldly wise.

41. Lee on December 31st, 2008 9:23 pm

    George’s entire last post is from “Myth 1: Atheists Are Smarter” by
    FATHER THOMAS D. WILLIAMS.

    Isaac Newton is quoted as saying ” “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.” This was about a century before Darwin. Read some of Steven Jay Gould’s more recent essays from Natural History Magazine” such as “”The Panda’s Thumb” also several essays in a book by the same name.

    What would your “religion” probably be had you been born in Iran to Iranian parents?

42. jes on January 1st, 2009 8:36 am

    Lee says:”George and jes, will you direct me in the teaching of evolution, plate tectonics, the value of biodiversity, of complex ecosystems, of human overpopulation and exploitation? Lets look at the real world – not a mythical one.”

    Is that an honest question? Or an arrogant boast? Do you really need direction or have you already determined it? I’ve been looking at the “real world” for 65 years, and I keep finding that no matter how much you think you know, there is an “eternity” of knowledge that we are incapable of recognizing, understanding or relating to the life you call “real”…What about evolution do you not understand? Haven’t you evolved yourself? Does the world of life need an explanation for you to refute? Is an intricate life form beyond your complete comprehension? Or do you need a road map to the cosmos within the nucleus of an atom? If these are understood, then why do you crave diversion and insatiable cravings within your inner soul? Give me the answers and I’ll give you the directions…..or are you satisfied with the questions and answers you already have?

43. jes on January 1st, 2009 9:05 am

    Happy New Year!
    On the first day…
    The Creation of the World

    1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
    1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel
    with words without knowledge?
    3 Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.
    4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
    6 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone-
    7 while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?
    8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
    when it burst forth from the womb,
    9 when I made the clouds its garment
    and wrapped it in thick darkness,
    10 when I fixed limits for it
    and set its doors and bars in place,
    11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
    here is where your proud waves halt’?
    12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
    or shown the dawn its place,
    13 that it might take the earth by the edges
    and shake the wicked out of it?

44. Lee on January 1st, 2009 1:53 pm

    jes, I was responding to George’s statement ” If you want to start a Bible class Jes and I will direct you.” to which i replyed “George and jes, will you direct me in – - – - – ? ”

    .

    g If you want to start a Bible class Jes and I will direct you.

45. Toby Bridges on January 31st, 2009 3:48 pm

    I love a good firey debate…but while everyone is fightin’ and fudin’ over what to do about wolves…elk and deer are dying.

    Face it, the wolf is the end product of nearly a million years of evolution,,,and the end product is one of the most efficient killing machines on the face of the Earth.

    I find it strange that with the wolf conspicuously absent for alomost all of the 1900s…deer and elk herds were brought back from near oblivion to, in some regions, record levels. Now that we have this bunch of several thousand imported Canadian mangey mongrels running through the Northern Rockies big game populations are beginning to take a serious down turn.

    Wolves simply aren’t reading the script written for them by the idiots of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or by the likes of the “wildlife experts” of the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, or the two-faced Humane Society of the United States, and a few others. Wolves cannot peacefully coexist with all other living creatures – which they consider prey.

    We are at the point where we must accept one fact, those who defend the wolf’s presence in the settled inter-mountain West are either ignorant or just plain stupid. Likewise, we have to accept that anything that comes from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding wolf impact on “other native wildlife”, is probably a lie. In the same light, those of you who like to quote things from the Minnesota DNR need to talk to the sportsmen in those areas where some 3,000 wolves have pretty much free rein. You’ll get an entirely different story. Too much of what the MN DNR knows about “their wolves” is right out of their training manuals.

    Here’s a thought…for those who want wolves, we should work toward keeping a viable population of about 100 wolves on each of our huge national parks – such as Glacier, Yellowstone, Olympic, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain, etc. and the size of those packs needs to be closely managed and culled to prevent total annihilation of the “other native wildlife” found in those parks. And then, if any of those wolves step across the boundary of those parks, they should be eliminated by anyone at any time. Now, that’s wolf control that most could live with – especially our elk and deer herds.

    Toby Bridges
    LOBO WATCH
    Missoula, MT

46. jes on January 31st, 2009 8:07 pm

    That’s what they told us their “wolf control” would be in the first place! “Closely managed packs” in the national parks and forests…..and it’s now a wildfire that is burning our elk and deer to the ground…Just like other political promises, it’s not what they promise, it what you end up with ….a short stick!

47. Toby Bridges on February 1st, 2009 11:44 am

    Jes…You get no argument from me. I do believe we are on the same page. I’ve just gotten a little sick and tired of all the back and forth over who should do the killing. I think that any wolf that steps off a National Park should be a legal target for whoever can squeeze off the first shot.

    In the Marine Corps we use to call them “Targets of Opportunity!”

    I’m headed up to a buddies place today to watch the Super Bowl…and he lives in the foothills of the Bitterroots…and like a good Marine…I’ll have my long range .308 Norma Mag ridin’ shotgun. You never know when a “Target of Opportunity” just might show up…as they have on occassion.

    Toby Bridges
    LOBO WATCH
    Missoula, MT

48. Greg Farber on February 1st, 2009 6:19 pm

    Yep, it’s the SR25 Stoner .308 ridin shotgun with me and target acquisition upon opportunity is the game everyday…with prejuidice….Bam.

    Allthough catching dogs in the open with the 700 RMK 151 at night is a hoot…BUMP HOWL hoot….

    Wish I could see that game…no tell-a-lie-vision here no more though…I wonder if the Steelers get Screwed by the CARDINALS today….hey hey…

49. jes on February 1st, 2009 7:27 pm

    We’re on the same page, Toby, and I’m glad to see that other people remember and recognize the fact the it was with the “open warfare” on wolves that we were able to bring back the elk and deer from pitiful populations….But today, people think that the wolf is “better” than the deer and elk, or that they can exist “in harmony” with wolves….seems like all the past experiences we’ve had in this country have to be learned all over again. Since they neither hunt or leave their autos or homes, they have much to learn….but don’t! Instead of listening to the people who do hunt and are in the woods enough to know what is happening, they go online and read articles about it…..and believe it if it is in print…..They have no reference of their own. They believe what they want….even if it is not right or true.

50. Christine on March 4th, 2009 3:27 pm

    I live in NW MN, there are alot of deer here, but just like me, the wolves prefer beef, horses, turkey, and dogs. Currently I am aware of two packs, one to the east mileabout 25 (pack of 30 wolves ), and one to the west 20 miles, (pack of 22). I personally know of adults, and children stalked by wolves. I know of local cases of kills on cattle, horses, dogs, and turkeys. Last fall the packs, on five occasions followed five different hunters to thier stands, this was 20 miles west of me.

    The people that have reported losses of livestock to the DNR do not get paid for most of thier losses, people that are stalked are ignored by DNR, even after articles are written in the paper. We here, know we are not really going to get compensation or protection. People here have lost faith in DNR, I believe they have stopped complaing to the DNR, and are doing what they need to do to survive on all levels. Remember beef are contained to fences feed corn, and are rolly polly fat, they wear out quick, unlike deer, that can run a half mile after being shot in the heart.

51. bruce on March 4th, 2009 5:12 pm

    there was a reason we shot most of the wolves and that is wolves are dangerous.the only reason these ass hats brought the wolves back was to destroy hunting by destroying dear and elk.shoot them on sight.

52. Christine on March 4th, 2009 5:58 pm

    See below a post written by a MN rancher that lost 38 head of beef in 2008, he had a herd of 100 calf cow pairs. I post this in response to the post at the top regarding MN ….

    there were 5 incedents with deer hunters last fall where a half dozen wolves tracked the hunters right to there deer stand,some were so scared they will never come back.with the hard winter weve had there will be even less deer then what happens.we had a meeting in lancaster with leroy stumf,dave olin,elk problem and wolves.these people making all the rules just dont get it they figure out the number of wolves or elk that this state can handle from a desk,the number of wolves for mn. is 1,600 now its over 4,000 still not delisted they cant even follow there own rules and we all no what that extra 2,400 wolves are eating beef and it will be a human casuallty sad to say. but enough is enough they make us criminals its to bad they break there own rules cant follow there paper work on the numbers of wolves and arent held accountable so be it .these twenty two wolves here wont ever bother anybody again rules can be broken on both sides you can push rancher or farmers so far and its there

Got something to say?