wolves in montana (what's your 2 cents?) (insurance, homes, go bankrupt)

[michael11747]

ok i apologize beforehand about the comments this will receive because i know how touchy of a subject it is here in montana. but my question to you is what you think of the status of wolves in montana? i will go ahead and state my opinion, and hope you all remember this is just an opinion.

so i originally moved to montana to enjoy the wild lands it has, and that included the animals as well as the scenery. what i found was a lot of native montanans who hate the iconic image of the west. not only the wolves, but the bison as well. i was completely puzzled as to why people here, for the most part, are against having an animal roam through their lands, that was there even before humans set foot in north america.

i would watch and hear about animals like wolves and bison being literally butchered and tortured before they were killed. one recent incident, which i might remind you all of, was at the sun ranch, where a worker repeatedly ran over a wolf in his ATV before shooting it to death. this is one of many stories i have heard in my years here. these were people who i did work for, and they confided in me with these stories like i was on their side.

now let me say this. this is about the only issue with which i disagree with the majority. i cannot believe that people can rationalize a wolf's behavior as something malicious, like they are out to get the rancher and make him go bankrupt. this is what i hear from people. i do not understand this train of thought from people who do not even own ranches, and just heard a story from someone who heard it elsewhere. wolves are pack hunters, which hunt to survive. after the original settlers eradicated them from these lands, they were seen fit to be put back because they were the original natives of these lands. this is the cousin of man's best friend. yet when domesticated animals, which were introduced to (and destroy) the environment, take precedent, then i believe that to be wrong. these animals are icons of the american west, and if you think ranching is going to keep the million people we have living here working, then you are wrong. ranching will provide for the lucky few families who own the land, not the hunter who works a day job building homes in big sky. i say let the bison and wolves roam free. conserve more land, bring in more tourist dollars. make the ranchers do their ranching more responsibly, and if that means letting a sheep or cow become an insurance claim once in awhile then that is fine.

[Rickers]

Other than some ranchers and a few so called environmentalists, not that many folks really care too much one way or another about wolves. I don't live near Yellowstone so we don't have free roaming bison. All the bison in my areas are fenced in just like cattle, including the National Bison Range. The ranchers I know worry more about rustlers than wolves. We saw a large wolf near East Glacier about a week ago.

[jimj]

I don't "hate" the wolves, wolves do what wolves do just as dogs act like well you know dogs.
The problem is wolves are now impacting hunting both by man and by other preditors and it's my understanding that wolves have been introduced into areas that they were never in before upsetting the natural balance of things. I don't think wolves should be eliminated but if what I'm hearing about what they're doing to the game heards is true they need to be managed just like we do with all the other game animals.
There has to be a middle of the road, not the envirowacko "animals come before humans" mantra and not the "kill it if it moves" from the other side. Yes, in some places wolves were probably here first but so were the dinosaurs and look where they are(n't).
People need to eat and most eat some kind of meat so we're in the same preditor stream as the wolf but we can fight better (and have opposable thumbs) so in that vein have the inherited or god given right (depending on what you believe) to eat before they do.

[blackhillsdreams]

Originally Posted by jimj

The problem is wolves are now impacting hunting both by man and by other preditors and it's my understanding that wolves have been introduced into areas that they were never in before upsetting the natural balance of things.

People need to eat and most eat some kind of meat so we're in the same preditor stream as the wolf but we can fight better (and have opposable thumbs) so in that vein have the inherited or god given right (depending on what you believe) to eat before they do.

Who's to say where or where wolves were or weren't in all of history? And does that really matter in the long run? If we build homes where wolves were in the past, yet reintroduce them in open lands where they may not have been but will survive, why does it matter where they were before?

God Given rights? So you're saying because we theoretically have superior intellect and capabilities, our rights are given by God? Do we have rights bestowed by God or Responsibilities he expects us to live up to? Does God want us to care for all of his beautiful creations or just use them to our own benefit? Rights or Responsibilities? There is a difference I think.

[michael11747]

the idea that humans are more intelligent, which gives them a higher status is going to change very soon, and already is all over the world. in fact, it is quite the opposite. we are dependent on EVERY species out there. if a few go extinct every few years, then no big deal (albeit very sad), but when mass extinctions start to take place, the fabric of nature will start to rip. that is what is happening all over the world. we are lucky we nipped this problem at the bud when federal lands started to be put aside in the late 1800's.

let me explain how the extinction of a species can cause desertification which will eliminate the possibility of growing food in the region. let's use a geographical region which is threatened, and very close. the pacific northwest, and its salmon. the salmon runs have become much smaller in recent years, and the forests are directly impacted by this. there are countless scientific studies that show that the nitrates in salmon fertilize the giant evergreen forests in the area. the actions of birds, bears, wolves, smaller animals, and even insects disperses the fish carcasses pretty well throughout the forest, which feeds the trees, which provide habitat, for all of the animals in the area. without the salmon, we would lose not only all of the animals in the area, but the trees, which would then cause massive erosion, and the rivers would then dry up because the moisture levels would not be adequate enough to produce the massive snowfalls we have now. tree respiration is responsible for quite a bit of weather which forms over the mountains. so in a few thousand years, the pacific northwest would become a vast mountain desert if we eliminated this keystone species.

now, a few thousand years is a long time, and hopefully we can come up with other solutions, but it is an example. and wolves have been deemed a keystone species in this area. they have a specific purpose, and that is to prey on the weaker animals and cull the herds. this is what they were designed to do by nature half a million years ago. they survived in north america during the Pleistocene epoch, when most of the world, and at times all of it, were completely covered in ice. all the while us humans were falling out of trees in sunny and warm africa. these animals deserve more respect than we give them.

not only did they live in this area, they managed it naturally before humans did it unnaturally with their barb wire fences and herds of texas longhorn. humans are the most destructive biological force ever known on this planet. hands down. if we can't find a way to live with nature, and all of it's quirks, then we are the ones in danger. if we kill off the wolves, will we die in turn? of course not. but we need to learn to live with natural species, including plants and insects, rather than limit or eradicating them through our improper agriculture techniques.

so proper management techniques, not the eradication of the wolf is our answer. hunting a wolf is fine with me, as long as there is a supportive population which can rebound. right now there isn't. they were introduced back into the inter mountain west in 1996. and when people torture any animal for pleasure, there is something wrong with that person's mind in my view. i am only thinking of a few specific instances, but i am sure you folks know of or have your own stories.

[bigtrees]

The problem with wolves is they compete with the livihood of ranchers

A lot of people forget that the ability for a rancher to put food on the table is dependent on him being able to breed cattle, birth cattle, raise cattle, and eventually ship cattle to market. Losing cattle inhibits his ability to put food on the table.

Montana is a beautiful state and it's easy to think that the purposes of ranchers is to be stewards of the land. In reality, ranching is a job and a business for many people and a job that is difficult even under the best of circumstances.

Expecting that a rancher should consider wolves to be a beneficial part of the ecosystem is unreasonable when the wolf destroy's the ranchers source of income and ability to put food on the table for his family. I don't agree with animal cruetly but recongize that ranchers have a reason to be angry at wolves that destroy their livihood.

[Stephan_K]

IMO currently, the only good wolf is a dead wolf !!!!!

Wolves do not hunt as other carnivorous animals do such as bears or Mt. lions. They hunt more for sport than they do survival. Has anyone ever watched a wolf go through a day in the life ? Ever see a pack of wolves hamstring an elk, a deer, a bison, a cow ? They feed on only a fraction of it (some in the pack if at all) and leave the rest to rot, then go out and do it again to the next animal they can scare up. THEY DO NOT EVER GO BACK AND FINISH WHAT THEY ALREADY KILLED nor do they save it somewhere to finish later as a bear or Mt lion would ! They are killing off everything... literally just to kill it. I'd like to see the tree huggers and environmentalist watch a video of this lifestyle and then get their updated opinion of wolves.

Anyone see the Daily Inter Lake paper a couple days ago ? Northwest Montana Daily Inter Lake > Archives > News > Local Montana > Legislator wants state to fight feds over wolves (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2008/12/21/news/local_montana/news_8770131717_02.txt - broken link)

Wolves are destroying the habitat and only those that spend time outdoors knows it. All the environmentalist sitting in their offices have no clue. After talking to a few people about killing wolves, from what I was told MT won't even prosecute one for shooting them right now. MT is fed up with what wolves are doing to the environment and rightfully so. Wonder how many people would love to have the meat from all the dead animals wolves leave behind ?!

And for the ranchers... it's not just an insurance claim or two every year its probably more like X hundreds collectively ! I'd like to see their actual numbers and insurance premiums to go along with those numbers too !

Bottom line for me, I don't have a problem with wolves being in the environment as they should be but to be left unmanaged as they are all the while managing everything else in our environment, is not managing our environment properly especially dealing with a sport predator as they are.

[acwhite96]

For people who don't know what wolves really do, check out this website.

www.saveelk.com

Very graphic pictures of what they do! They don't go after the weak only, they don't eat ALL their kill. The saddest of it all, they kill does and cows (elk females) right at the point of delivery......from the back end while the doe and cow are ALIVE!! People want to protect the wolf because they were once........if the wolves aren't eleminated soon, that is what we will be saying about the deer, elk, mtn goats, big horn sheep and what ever else they can kill. These are CANADIAN GREY WOLF not the Timber Wolf that roamed here originally!! What is sad, the wolves will prey on a child when the other animals are slim to none....tell you what, I believe in the moto, "Shoot, Shovel and Shutup"

[grizzfan]

Here is the problem my little children:

About 100 years ago the wolf and man discovered that they each liked to eat cattle and sheep. For the wolf, cattle and sheep were much easier to catch than elk, deer and an occasional moose. At about that time man discovered that when his cattle and sheep are eaten by wolves that he loses money and the ability to make a living. About that time it was decided to kill all the wolves, which was done, and cattle and sheep were safe from that point on.

More than 10 years ago a group of dreamers proposed that we reintroduce the wolf so that the world would be, their view, normal again. Many protested recalling their grandfather's stories. But the dreamers saw a cash cow in the wolf from many city-slickers and enviromental wannabes who were well healed. And they introduced the wolf who quickly multiplied and spread all over hell killing sheep and cattle and llamas. And some groups paid the rancher for their losses, but they are running out of money.

Solution: Readopt the 100 year old plan and kill every one of those m-fers. If you need a volunteer, send me.

[Gman2007]

Originally Posted by michael11747

let's use a geographical region which is threatened, and very close. the pacific northwest, and its salmon. the salmon runs have become much smaller in recent years, and the forests are directly impacted by this. there are countless scientific studies that show that the nitrates in salmon fertilize the giant evergreen forests in the area. the actions of birds, bears, wolves, smaller animals, and even insects disperses the fish carcasses pretty well throughout the forest, which feeds the trees, which provide habitat, for all of the animals in the area. without the salmon, we would lose not only all of the animals in the area, but the trees, which would then cause massive erosion, and the rivers would then dry up because the moisture levels would not be adequate enough to produce the massive snowfalls we have now.

As someone who grew up in a small logging town in the Pacific Northwest I find this statement a little misleading. Seems like scare tactics to me... The Northwest is perfectly suited for growing trees due to the environment in which it is situated. Yes, there are rivers in which salmon utilize and thus they inturn will be utilized for fertilizer but you can't tell me that ALL of the millions of acres of forests have rivers or streams running through them that utilize salmon as fertilizer or even have streams that salmon use for spawing!

Salmon fishing, as the wolf issue, can best be handled through management and best not done on the federal level! The complete shutting down of the salmon fishing season this last year had devastating effects for all the small towns that relied on fishing for their livelihood. And, if I'm not mistaken, the season was shut along the entire coast CA-OR due to low numbers of fish surveys in California at the Sacramento River! We are all here living together -man and animals - at this point. Completely shutting out one or the other is NOT the answer...

Feds warn entire salmon season could be halted

NOAA Fisheries Recommend Closing Salmon Fishing from California to Oregon: ENN -- Know Your Environment

Fishing halted after West Coast salmon 'failure' | Science Blog (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/california-and-oregon-commercial-salmon-fishing-declared-quotfailurequot-shut-down-16207.html - broken link)