Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2010, 08:15:08 PM
by Charles E. Kay
Charles E. Kay has a Ph.D. in wildlife ecology and is adjunct professor of political science at Utah State University and a Research Fellow for the Independent Institute.
The federal government and environmental groups who would like to see wolves returned to the West under protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) claim that the public supports wolf recovery, and that science is on their side. The former director of the National Park Service, for instance, was quoted as saying that "there is little scientific basis for most objections being raised to wolf reintroduction" (Fischer 1987:30). Others contend that "half-truths and misrepresentation of facts continue to thwart" (Miller 1988:5) wolf recovery, and Defenders of Wildlife has said that people who oppose wolf reintroduction are "aggressively anti-science" (Neal 1992:A8). Are wolf proponents right? Or are there aspects of this issue that they have purposefully overlooked?
I am committed neither to having wolves in the West nor to keeping them out. I am committed, though, to science being used responsibly in policy debates, something I have not yet seen with wolf recovery. My analysis indicates that the federal government and other wolf advocates have taken liberties with the truth, with science, and with the Endangered Species Act.
NUMBER OF WOLVES
Far and away the most important aspect of the wolf debate is how many wolves we are talking about 100? 300? Or 2,000? The number of wolves is central to any discussion of whether predation will limit ungulate numbers, whether hunting might have to be curtailed or eliminated, and how much livestock depredation might occur. When Defenders of Wildlife first began to lobby for wolf reintroduction, they talked of "35 to 45 wolves" in all of Yellowstone Park (Randall 1981:31). This was echoed by an early National Park Service (1975:5) report, which said, "the final numbers [of wolves] that would winter within the park and be compatible with other interests on adjoining lands are expected to range between 30 and 40 wolves." Now plans call for 10 wolf packs totaling approximately 100 wolves in Yellowstone.
In 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its recovery plan for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains as mandated by the Endangered Species Act. Besides Yellowstone, the plan addresses wolf recovery in northwest Montana and central Idaho (see Figure 1). According to that document, if a minimum of 10 wolf packs breed in any one recovery area for three successive years, the wolves in that area are to be downlisted from endangered to threatened status. When at least 10 breeding pairs have been maintained for at least three successive years in all three recovery areas, wolves are to be completely removed from the Endangered Species List. While the wolf is listed as either threatened or endangered, hunting and trapping are not to be permitted except by agents of the federal government who may remove individual wolves that prey on livestock (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987).
farther into the page Dr Kay says:
"The government proposed 100 wolves in each area, knowing that the numbers would not be enough to meet ESA requirements of minimum viable population size, and environmental groups did not object, knowing that 300 wolves would raise less political opposition than 1,500 to 2,000 wolves. Wolves arrive and increase to 300. The government moves to delist. Environment-alists sue and win. The wolf population is allowed to reach 1,500 or more. Environmentalists are happy, the federal agencies are happy, and the public realizes—too late—what has happened."
Read the full story:
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm#LIVESTOCK (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm#LIVESTOCK)
______________________________________
USFWS Rocky Mtn Wolf Recovery Plan:
http://washingtonwolf.info/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan-1987-USFWS.pdf (http://washingtonwolf.info/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan-1987-USFWS.pdf)
US Forest Service FEIS (canus lupus):
http://washingtonwolf.info/Canis lupus-fs_fed_us-2010 (2).pdf]http://washingtonwolf.info/Canis lupus-fs_fed_us-2010 (2).pdf]http://washingtonwolf.info/Canis lupus-fs_fed_us-2010 (2).pdf (http://washingtonwolf.info/Canis lupus-fs_fed_us-2010 (2).pdf)
Washington Draft Wolf Plan:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/gray_wolf/draft_plan/05oct2009_draft_plan_deis.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/gray_wolf/draft_plan/05oct2009_draft_plan_deis.pdf)
RE: Wolf Numbers
The original USFWS plan calls for 100 wolves in YNP, 100 in NW Montana, and 100 in Central Idaho. (check it out for yourself)
Also see the recovery areas mapped on page 23 of the USFWS Recovery Plan. This wolf recovery effort has changed considerably from the original bill of goods that was sold to the people.
RE: Historic Wolf Distribution
Please see the first 3 pages of the USFS FEIS. The Rocky Mtns were previously occupied by canis lupus irremotus, however canis lupus occidentalis was transplanted into Idaho and YNP by the USFWS which has many conservationists in an uproar since occidentalis is a larger sub-species and has reproduced rapidly, most likely contributing to the permanent demise of irremotis and the demise of naturally colonizing wolves from southern Alberta and British Columbia due to being bred by the larger northern wolf occidentalis. Man has effectively introduced a larger predator un-naturally to the Rocky Mountain landscape.
Please see the map showing the original distribution of canis lupus irremotus on page 2 of the USFWS Recovery Plan. Canis lupus irremotus lived in eastern Washington and the northern Rocky Mtns. Now please see the first 3 pages of the USFS FEIS. Canis lupus fuscus inhabited the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Now it seems that natural colonization by Canis lupus columbianus is occuring from southern British Columbia into the northern cascades by wolves naturally migrating across the border.
Since natural colonization by Canis lupus columbianus is occuring in the cascades where Canis lupus fuscus was the native sub-species, this raises an important question. Should humans (WDFW) interfere with this natural cycle by translocating the larger northern canadian wolf canis lupus occidentalis which is now migrating northwest toward eastern Washington from Idaho and Montana. Any translocation of wolves from Eastern Washington to the Cascades or Olympics could introduce the larger canis lupus occidentalis which would likely be a more efficient predator and breeder than the native Canis lupus fuscus or the naturally colonizing Canis lupus columbianus from southern British Columbia?
For these reasons and many others, Eastern Washington, the North Cascades, and the South Cascades / Olympics should be managed separately. One recovery area should not be dependent on another recovery area for delisting or for translocating non-native wolves. Canis lupus occidentalis is a non-native sub-species and man should not artificially introduce this larger wolf to new areas of Washington which have never been inhabited by this larger wolf which was unnaturally introduced into Idaho and YNP.
Please see the recovery areas mapped on page 23 of the USFWS Recovery Plan. Also read pages 31 to 38 of the USFWS Recovery Plan and view page 43 paragraph 54 of the USFWS Recovery Plan. The original wolf recovery areas were based on remote areas with 300 squre miles (50 miles x 60 miles) of no more than 10% private ownership with little human population or livestock ranching and those remote areas should be surrounded by buffer zones. I would like to submit that Washington's remote areas that are actually suited for wolves according to the USFWS Rocky Mtn Wolf Recovery Plan are very limited. Many areas of Washington are unsuitable as areas for wolf recovery and the potential for interaction with humans, pets, and livestock is too great if any of the listed options in the Washington Draft Wolf Plan are approved.
(see suggested wolf distribution on pages 42-43 of the Washington Draft Wolf Plan)
Wolf recovery does not have to occur overnight by translocating non-native larger sub-species of wolves in Washington. Responsible wildlife managers should want the most natural colonization possible by wolves in a manner that is compatible with Washington's human densities and livestock based rural economy. This natural colonization is occuring by at least two different sub-species of wolves in seperate areas of Washington. Instead of considering unnatural translocation of wolves, wildlife managers should be considering buffer zones and management actions to keep wolves compatible with available wolf habitat, thus insuring a much higher level of public acceptance of wolves.
(please let me know if any of you see any discrepancies in the materials provided)
Post by: wolfbait on February 21, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
Post by: Special T on February 21, 2010, 08:26:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2010, 08:58:17 AM
Post by: Sporting_Man on February 23, 2010, 11:06:57 PM
However, I can't understand biologists - scientists, that can bend facts and reality in order to satisfy their side, or earn a paycheck. Science has no sides, it should be a fact driven force...
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 11:34:37 AM
Then all the special interest groups like to promote the scientist's opinion in his "Conclusion" if it matches their agenda.
This is the way it appears to me, I am not a trained scientist, please correct me if I am wrong.:twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on March 03, 2010, 08:35:55 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 08:40:35 PM
Pretty interesting looking at what the groups on both sides of this argument pull out of these papers. Both sides can take exerpts and use to their advantage. :chuckle:
Just as many politics in the scientific end of it. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on March 03, 2010, 08:52:53 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 03, 2010, 09:23:38 PM
wolfbait, you have been reading through all the studies and documents too haven't you....
Pretty interesting looking at what the groups on both sides of this argument pull out of these papers. Both sides can take exerpts and use to their advantage. :chuckle:
Just as many politics in the scientific end of it. :twocents:
Sure both sides can twist anyway they wish, but the USFWS manufactured evidence, in other wards they lied in order for the wolves to fit their plans, Proven facts. This wolf introduction is full of crooked deals with the USFWS and Defenders of Wildlife. The only state that has tried to hold the USFWS to the original plan is Wyoming. By now I am quite sure Idaho and Montana wished they would have done the same.
Post by: KillerMiller on March 03, 2010, 10:05:18 PM
What I have learned by studying all this wolf stuff is that all these scientists use facts in their "Abstract". Then they write their opinion (supposedly based on the Abstract) in their "Conclusion".
Then all the special interest groups like to promote the scientist's opinion in his "Conclusion" if it matches their agenda.
This is the way it appears to me, I am not a trained scientist, please correct me if I am wrong.:twocents:
A scientific paper should have an abstract (summary of the study), introduction, methods, results, and conclusion (discussion). If the author has an opinion it should be based on the results. :twocents: Just like the Pro and Anti groups studies are frequently used to further their agenda. However, if you break down the study into the methods and results you may see their agenda. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on March 03, 2010, 10:21:42 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on March 04, 2010, 10:05:51 AM
Post by: mathews_shooter4life on March 04, 2010, 04:01:08 PM
my name is Kevin. glad to find some more serious wolf followers here..
Please consider these facts about this species. I don't know if it has been brought to your attention before, since I am new here, and please accept my apologies if so....but here goes......
this link proves there are serious problems within the state of Id.
http://www.legislature.Idaho.gov/legislation/2010/HCR043.pdf (http://www.legislature.Idaho.gov/legislation/2010/HCR043.pdf)
here is a link to show the Non-Native, Invasive status we are now forced to hand down upon this species....
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter175.htm (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter175.htm)
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter176.htm (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter176.htm)
Here is a link showing how wolves become human-habituated.... with an informative 7 steps to human-habituated wolves......
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/01/16/w-i-s-e-human-habituated-wolves-in-idaho/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/01/16/w-i-s-e-human-habituated-wolves-in-idaho/)
here is an incident that took place in Id. recently. shows how far these wolves are progressing through the 7 steps of human habituation....
http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/school-facilities-transportation-school/13736312-1.html (http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/school-facilities-transportation-school/13736312-1.html)
here is another from Id.....
http://wolfcrossing.org/2008/02/01/idaho-wolves-kill-deer-within-yards-of-school-bus-stop/ (http://wolfcrossing.org/2008/02/01/idaho-wolves-kill-deer-within-yards-of-school-bus-stop/)
how about a link to a recent town hall meeting to address the problem of wolves killing prey within Sun Valley city limits.....
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005130227 (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005130227)
Now lets examine what 2 photo's of a pack north of Jackson Hole shows as to how big these packs can become when they are allowed to expand uncontrolled....
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r132/trappenfool/20100128_5ld.jpg (http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r132/trappenfool/20100128_5ld.jpg)
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r132/trappenfool/20100128_6ld.jpg (http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r132/trappenfool/20100128_6ld.jpg)
Think we might stand a chance of recovering from this act of "Eco-Terrorism"?
Only if we sportsmen stand up and declare war on this species along with all the other Non-Native Invasive species will we even stand a chance of having this hunting heritage to pass on to our children, grandchildren.