Posted: 21 July 2010 at 17:39 | IP Logged

This would really suck

For Immediate Release, July 20, 2010

Contact:  Michael Robinson, (575) 534-0360

Wolf Recovery Sought Across Country: West Coast, New England, Colorado and Great Plains

Silver City, N.M.— Gray wolves should be recovered in multiple, connected populations throughout the United States, according to a scientific petition filed today by the Center for Biological Diversity with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The petition asks for development of a national recovery plan for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act to establish wolf populations in suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, Great Basin, southern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and New England.

“Existing recovery plans for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest are out of date and apply to a small fraction of the wolf’s historic range,” said the Center’s Michael Robinson. “It’s time to develop a national recovery plan to facilitate true recovery of the gray wolf.”

Currently, gray wolf populations are limited to the northern Rocky Mountains, western Great Lakes and Southwest, which makes up less than 5 percent of their historic range. In part, this reflects the fact that the gray wolf has never had a national recovery plan, though it has been listed in the entire conterminous United States since 1978. Instead, individual recovery plans have been developed for only the three areas that now harbor populations. These plans were developed in the late 1970s and 1980s and are now outdated. Besides failing to recognize that wolves can be recovered to other areas, the plans set population goals well below what are now considered necessary for population health and survival. In the northern Rocky Mountains, for example, the recovery plan only called for 30 breeding pairs, split between three subpopulations.

“Small, isolated wolf populations are a recipe for extinction,” said Robinson. “Science teaches us that we need far more wolves that range across a much wider swath of the continent than the current minimalistic approach.”

The Center’s petition starts a process in which the Fish and Wildlife Service must make a determination on whether to develop such a recovery plan based on the science in the petition and the requirements of the law. The Endangered Species Act requires recovery of endangered animals and plants throughout all significant portions of their range.

“Wolves are an engine of evolution,” said Robinson. “They help feed bears, eagles and wolverines with the leftovers from their kills; they help pronghorn antelope and even foxes survive by controlling coyotes. A continent-wide approach to wolf recovery is necessary both to save the wolf and to restore ecosystems across the United States.”

Posted: 21 July 2010 at 20:22 | IP Logged

I think they should turn a couple hundred loose in Washington D.C.

I think it is bullshit that these dumbasses have begun the destruction of wildlife in Wyoming so they can say they "saved" the wolves.

Their is a reason wolves were shot on site back in the early 1900's

Wing master

Posted: 22 July 2010 at 09:30 | IP Logged

“Wolves are an engine of evolution,” said Robinson. “They help feed bears, eagles and wolverines with the leftovers from their kills; they help pronghorn antelope and even foxes survive by controlling coyotes."  and if you believe this, Obama says it will make new jobs.

Maybe we need to send money and wolves to Pakistan also???  Hillary could take fast Willy ...... da wolf

Posted: 22 July 2010 at 20:07 | IP Logged

Purpose, to kill fawns, sheep, cattle, and to be hunted.  Seems useful to me.  I like wolf and fox hunting; preferably in the snow.

I though God was all powerful...so if he wanted to create "a useless, evil creature that serves no purpose in nature"..he could.

Or Mule are you saying that God is not all powerful...and therefore couldn't create a useless creature...therefore the wolf is useful?  Sounds like heresy for a Christian to say God is not all powerful????

Posted: 23 July 2010 at 05:47 | IP Logged

No, but god was supposed to be on our side, right?  That's why people pray to him for help with every selfish interest they may have.  If he's so disinterested in the human lot that he would create a beast that is by nature anti-human interests (i.e. livestock and wildlife), then it just goes to reason that those prayers are wasted on an omnipotent, yet uncaring entity.  I don't think wolves are inherently evil at all.  They're part of nature, and certainly have their place.  I don't think they'll mix well with large populations of humans, but then, I'm for better controling the human population too.  It just seems contradictory to find fault with creation then say that the creator is the answer to anything.  Narcissim, pure and simple.  That's gotta be a sin.  Someone look it up.

As far as livestock are concerned, Bison and wapiti are much more suited to deal with wolves.  Man has sinned by exterminating those species and importing foreign ones to this corner of creation that was perfectly in balance.  Man was also self-destructive in that regard because bison and wapiti are much healthier choices than cattle and swine.  I figure white man sinned big time by shooting the bison and wapiti and leaving them to rot, mostly.  Disease is just one sign that karma is having its way.  Maybe by restoring wolves our karma could swing a little the other way?  Of course, BP probably screwed us big time in that department as well.  So, Jimmy Buffet may be right - It's all BP's fault.

Talking yourselves into a frenzy about how wrong it is to restore wolves and how bad wolves are just undermines your whole claimed belief system and makes every prayer seem like a joke on yourself.  So lighten up.  Take a wolf to lunch.  And don't mind those carcases littering the highways.  It just means that cars are evil, and we all knew that anyway, right?

Posted: 23 July 2010 at 07:21 | IP Logged

WOW, you are really messed up.

thinking your should read more about what the word Karma means!

Posted: 24 July 2010 at 23:47 | IP Logged

Thats the first I have heard of "white man" killing large numbers of wapiti. Thats Elk to all of you white guys. Then leaving then to rot. The Buffalo hunters were not that good of hunters. they hunted buffalo cause they have really bad eyesight and are relatively easy to kill in large numbers from a distance with a rifle. Elk run away when you fire a shot.

Anyway, I still don't like wolves and don't think they should have been reintroduced.

Wing master

Posted: 25 July 2010 at 22:30 | IP Logged

Bet you'd feel different if one of your beloved Mule babies was pulled limb from limb and eaten by wolves when it was still half alive. Kind of like all those poor creatures in the gulf.  These damn wolves are the BP of the woods and mountains. Another damn Government plan like allowing drilling in the Gulf. Give them a crack to start and before you know it there's drilling rigs and wolves all over threatening wildlife and peoples living. Fishermen and ranchers alike. Drilling rigs are killing the fish taking away our sportsmans rights to fish. Wolves are killing bear hunting dogs in Northern Wisconsin while they are trailing bears taking away our rights to hunt. Damn it Mule, wake up!!!!  You're out there on both sides of the same topic again! Rockydog

Posted: 26 July 2010 at 12:32 | IP Logged

I'm not on ANY side.  I'm just making conversation.  It makes some of you feel uncomfortable to hear any inconsistencies in what you're saying.  I'm just trying to unnerstand how wolves can be SO bad across the board, yet know they were here with all the other critters europeans value (or not, as in the case of the bison) by virtue of divine intervention (supposedly).  It just seems hypocritical to be saying white man's god is the one true and perfect God, yet crapping on his creation that way.  Just an observation.  Seems like devotion is an act of convenience.  Like I said, from a practical standpoint, wolves near large human populations is a bad idea, but it goes much deeper with some of yall.

Rocky, I always bought yearlings.  Best value in livestock.  A good yearling will train up jus' how you want an' you ain't gotta deal with all the expense and risk in birthin' one from scratch.

Posted: 29 July 2010 at 06:30 | IP Logged

Kingpin wrote: This may sound strange, I am for industrial might, I am solidly for America, I believe in a superior being, and I believe in the wolf. What I am not sure of, is why so many are against them. Perhaps if I were a cattleman, I would sing a different tune. I once heard the howl of a wild wolf, such a lonely sound, and beautiful in it's own way. I kind of felt one with it. Teddy Roosevelt, great conservationist that he was, once said that there wasn't a more worthless animal on the planet. That doesn't smack of conservationism to me. The wolf, the ones here, are true American. Sometime back in the 1600's or earlier, the europeans killed the last of their wolves. Fill me in here, because I am drawing a blank. Don't wolves serve a valuable place in the food chain? I mean, doesn't Darwins theory, survival of the fittest, apply to them? I am serious as a heart attack here, what am I missing?..........................Kingpin

I don't mind wolves myself, I hate government wolves though, let me explain my point.

We've had wolves up here in NW Montana for years, I doubt if they were ever really hunted out.  When the government imported wolves to Yellowstone and Idaho, they disrupted the natural spread of wolves and caused an unnatural concentration of predators in a small area.  While it's true that hunters are the predator being replaced by the wolf, the fact remains Elk numbers are way down in areas where wolf numbers are way up.  Elk recruitment numbers(number of cows having a calf survive first year) in Yellowstone were at close to 80% prior to 2000, current recruitment has fallen below 10%.  When the Deer and Elk are chased by wolves year round, they tend to have lower winter survival rates and lower pregnancy rates.  During a natural prey/predator cycle, when prey numbers fell, predators numbers would follow, with the addition of livestock, wolves just supplement on sheep, calves, horses, dogs and pet food.  This allows them to keep increasing to unnatural numbers, at some point people become prey.  It's to the point now, where pets are a winter food source, you have to fence the wolves out of your yard or they will take any dog or cat left outside overnight.  To a pack of wolves, a kid outside is a perfectly acceptable prey, it hasn't happened here yet, but everybody knows it will eventually. 

Posted: 29 July 2010 at 19:26 | IP Logged

Unnatural concentration of predators?  What about the unnatural concetration of ungulates?  They were shooting 30% of the elk in Yellowstone every year back in the 60s, then, a TV crew got some footage of the cull.  The devastation to vegetation and streams is very real.  Something has to keep down the herds.

Posted: 30 July 2010 at 04:58 | IP Logged

Same argument, the government being the all knowing and all controlling, caused the problem to start with.

First they put a bounty on wolves, then they made a large area off limits to hunting, they encouraged visitors to feed the bears (made great home movies), when the bears became to used to people they decided feeding them was bad, stopped every spot fire until fuel built up to nearly burn the whole place up, too many elk because of the new grazing from fires, put wolves in there to get rid of extra elk.

It seems like, the more the government experts "helped", the worse they made the problems.