Surprised this issue hasn't surfaced yet here, so I'll kick it off:
In May, SI Salazar reaffirmed the Bush decision to delist the Gray Wolf from Endangered Species protection. I believe there are 1500 or so wolves in the Rockies. Butch Otter (gov ID) is already chomping at the bit to shoot the first wolf, they plan on killing at least half of the wolves there. Salazar claims that "science" backs up the idea that the population is sufficient and wolves should be managed as other big game is. Seems to me, wolves are not elk, and both species did just fine for eons without our interference. Would really like to hear from somone who can defend Salazar's move.
In my mind the issue is more an opportunity for the microphone grabbers than whether or not the wolves need to be killed in some places and not in others. Some folks, both pro and con, just don't think their world is validated if they don't have a microphone in their hands.
To illustrate, I know folks first hand you would think would be on opposite sides of the issue: A family with a large ranch in Montana onto which wolves have moved, and greenie non-hunting suburban dwellers. The rancher is keeping his mouth shut in the face of other ranchers crowded up to the microphone, rather than lose his footing with them. The wolves have dramatically thinned the elk on his place, and he's lost a couple of his prize cow dogs to wolves right in his yard. His attitude? "Send me some more wolves cuzz they're the first damn thing to come along and keep the elk out of my alfalfa fields. And those dogs were too stupid to live anyway." The suburban greenies? They've lost a dog and a 4-H sheep to wolves edging up into the suburban areas. Just like the rancher, they're leery of the microphone grabbers in the anti-crowd. They're attitude: "It's gone too far when the wolves close in on the towns. They're worse than coyotes for noshing on pets."
Both parties agree that there is some sensible compromise between kill and no-kill, but it's never going to be found in the atmosphere set up by the folks on either side currently dominating microphones.
Thanks for your response, Hank--i appreciate that. That's a good point about how politics, even inside politics, can prevent cooler heads from prevailing. I would certainly like to see the decisions made by someone who doesnt have an axe to grind. Its unfortunate that most of the well-publicized stories on issues like this always go on and on about how both sides claim that "science" is on their side, but you hardly ever see a story that actually talks about the science behind the claims!
Bingo! Just as politics is run like NFL football with winners and losers and no common ground, so are conservation issues. May level heads nowhere near the special interest groups prevail in either venue.
The histrionic title of this thread, which is so typical of the tabloid press, hardly deserves a rational, thoughtful defense of Sen. Salazar's decision, which I happen to support.
Well, it wasnt meant as histrionic (hyperbolic, perhaps? I mean, the decision does result in wolves being killed--there's no denying that!) but wouldnt want to discourage participation, so ill change it. I would be interested in your thoughts, John.
If it was easy everyone would be doing it! Nobody ever promised a rancher an easy go of it without any obstacles, or setbacks. I personally don't like this attitude about going in and eliminating anything that poses a potential problem to the process of making a living. It might cost some money up front to take measures to discourage the wolves, but I think there are ways to do a pretty good job without "culling". I don't know for sure, but 1500 wolves in the rockmies doesn't sound like a huge number to me. While I sympathize with the ranchers, I think they should have to try harder, before taking out a gun and destroying something that existed here long before thay did!!!!! And if it costs a little $$$, then they'll just have to chalk it up to the cost of doing business. And maybe we''ll have to pay a little more for steak. I'm personaaly willing to pay a little more for the privelidge of having the wolves out there.
I actually sat in a bar in jackson Wyoming a couple of years ago. I was with a local who loved to hunt. He spent a lot of time trying to tell me that they should open up Grand Teton, and Yellowstone to grizzly, and wolf hunting. His argument was that the elk populations were being desimated by the two predator species. Also that there were grizzlies everywhere in the Grand Tetons! He didn't seem to care that the safe havens that these parks are, is why we can go and see these great animals in the first place. As soon as they have to start dodging bullets, and humans, they will be off into the high country where we don't bother them. I guess then the economy of the towns in these regions would have to shift from ecotourism, to hunting, primarily. I don't really have any problem with hunting, or the people that enjoy it. But me personally, I'll go down to the store and buy a ribeye, before I would destroy the beauty of the living creature itself. I know it can be a little hypocritical, because a cow has to be slaughtered in order for me to enjoy my steak. But it isn't exactly the same thing.
Chris
Posted by John Scheel on August 3, 2009 at 2:32 AM
ok lets look at it another way,1500 wolves in the rockies if that is even near right.works out to be 300 packs of five wolves, 5 wolves can take down any thing in the mountains including man.so if the rockies are 2000 miles long that means there are five wolves every6.6 miles with that in mind remember we are part of the food chain to.just a thought and I have ran into a pack of five in the woods and was hunting with a long bow at the time,plus there wasnt suppose to be any in that area, lol another way to look at it is how would you feel if you came home to find out that your house was robbed and you couldnt do any thing about it because the gang that did it is protected by law. so there are a lot of ways to look at this.I like wolves and bears but not in my back yard.oh and if you dont get how the rancher feels then go out and try working at a ranch for a year feeding and taking care of those cows inter and summer,it's not about the cows it's about living a life and having what you worked hard for taken from you. htere has been times when I was young and the temp and chill factor was at -50 degrees that I would have given anyting for the wolves to come and eat all the cows but then I couldnt have feed my kids.I hope I didnt step on any toes here,just trying to make a point and I havent hunted with any thing but a camera for a long time just no need to kill any more to much into life.
I think it's great that there are wolves in the Rockies again, and I wouldn't want to kill (especially "cull," which means anything but) any of them. If I lived where a pack of wolves lived, I'd feel the same way. Unless the wolves were literally threatening--that is, unless the wolves had already killed one of my animals and looked ready to make that a habit. Then I guess I'd spend some nights outdoors with my animals and see if I could scare the wolves away by shooting up the ground near them, and if I couldn't scare them off, I guess I'd have a hard decision to make.
Let me stop here and explain my attitude toward "culling." If only those packs of wolves that had developed a dependence on beef were killed, I'd grudgingly agree to it with some qualifications. But I suspect that the "culling" is going to be done by the numbers: "let's kill n% of the n wolves that live in our state," and that's too indiscriminate. Besides, the remaining wolves will breed to fill the niches no longer occupied by the wolves that are killed. It's okay if you like to kill wolves, but it's not going to stop the wolves from preying on cattle before they are shot.
Back to hard decisions. We like the wildness of the Rockies, and many of us like it better now that there are wolves living in the mountains. But this is real wild, not Bambi-wild, and real elk and real cattle get killed and eaten by real wolves. If you don't like your livestock supplying sustenance to the inhabitants of the wild, move into town and keep your livestock in well- and electrically-fenced feedlots. If you don't want your horses killed by cougars, don't keep them in confined corrals (if the horses are healthy and have enough room... I'm mentioning different prey and predator here because I don't have first-hand experience of cattle and wolves, but I do have it of horses and cougars). In the extra-legal, entirely natural scheme of things, human beings don't have a right to live wherever they want in whatever state of security that they'd like.
In the great myths of our (white) culture, there are heroes like Beowulf who take on monsters like Grendel. Closer to home, Natty Bumppo, who kept on moving west because he found the smell of woodsmoke reminding him that too many people had begun to live in his wilderness. Beowulf and Natty Bumppo lived on the edges, the places where human beings ventured only at risk and always with a (heady) sense of danger. The kind of literature that comes after that with heroes has people living in towns and cities, the places where civilized human beings belong. The heroes are exciting to read about. But they don't live where we live, and they wouldn't fit in if they did (Natty got arrested for hunting deer out of season; what season?--he needed meat).
There's no solution to the problem posed by wolves now living in modest numbers in areas where the human population keeps increasing and increasing. It seems to me that the greater problem is that there are too many people.
(When it got so that we couldn't stand having animals that we loved killed by wildlife that we respected, my husband and I sold the ranch and moved to town.)
Posted by Robert Bunch on August 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM
First of all what is so histrionic about the headline Salazar: Delist the wolves? I say keep them protected cause soon as they are delisted they are gonna be under the gun of every misguided wolf hating yahoo with a rifle. Wolves and ungulates have evolved together for thousands of years so there is no way that wolves will kill all the elk and deer. They have kept each other in a healthy natural balance for thousands of years until humans showed up with their need to grab up all the land and resources for themselves and threw a big ole monkey wrench in the works of nature. Many of the ranchers graze their cattle on public land, owned by all americans, at dirt cheap rates. I feel they need to make a few concessions to the wildlife if they want to use public land. In some parts of the west where there are no wolves ranchers bitch about too many elk eating up the grass from their cattle. They are always whining about something. According to statistics that I have read far more cattle and sheep are killed by severe weather, drought and disease than by wolves. Ranching is tough nowadays and they can't do anything about weather, drought or disease so they take it out on the predators. In reality I don't believe wolves are as much a threat as they are just a scapegoat for every other problem that ranchers face. Delisting them and turning management over to the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho where ranching and hunting interests are very powerful would see a drastic decline in wolf numbers. Until these states and their ranching and hunting interests can demonstrate a more enlightened attitude toward predators I say keep them protected.
John S: I especially am grateful for your response and perspective. I have to say, your argument fails for me immediately on its face. If a wolf/wolves become a threat to people or even property with attacks, theyve never been protected under the law and never will be. Your "robbing the house" analogy assumes the house is lawfully built in the first place. The wolves were there long before you built your house. If you move into the "gangs" territory, then are you really right in complaining when the gang comes to pay a visit?? If I built my house in the middle of a swamp loaded with crocodiles, am i right to complain when one of my chihuahuas gets eaten?? Our response as a species has always been "kill, kill, kill", never coexist. Before Europeans arrived, there were probably 200,000 wolves in N America. Now, maybe 5,000. Does it make any sense to kill half of that number now? To me, its insanity.
Robert: the original title was "Kill the Wolves!" Which was meant to be attention-getting and
to the point, unfortunately it scared away John M, who i really would like to hear from, because im sure his arguments are well thought out and informed. Needless to say i agree with you, one look at Wyoming (where Salazar is apparently not so anxious to allow the hunting to recommence!) when hunting was allowed tells the story.
Rosemarie, Chris, all i can say is i am in complete agreement. Thanks for the responses.
Posted by John Scheel on August 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Hi,Stan oklet me start by saying I to agree ,let them be. what I was trying to say is that to the rancher cow are not looked at as a animal but a possion and as such they have the right to protect their property just as the person in the city,as for how long they been here well I think they were pretty much gone by the time that most of us where born. And that being so they are like the gangs that move into an area,not that I or you would move to a place that we know that they are a problem. Most if not all of the ranchers never seen a wolf before they where brought back by the goverment. and I have never know a wild animal that understood what a fence or park bondery was, although I wish they did,I am not for the killing of any of the wild animals that we have, with the exception of those that live in the city's that harm others. I have spent most of my life caring for animals of one kind or the other and still do what I can. when I do go into the hills I understand that mans law stops in a sence at the end of the road meaning that I am in there world (animal) and just as much part of the food chain as the rest of them.Sorry I don't have the gift of words that most of you have but thought I would give it a try. have a great day. John
Ok, John, i understand what you are saying, thanks. You are being a realist and that is probably a good thing, my philosophy is an idealistic one and that can be a tough thing to sell to people.
My support of S.I. Salazar's decision is definitely not in support of the likes of Butch Otter, et al and hopefully will not be read as such. In fact, I may not like or agree with the decision at all (I happen to believe that it's critically important for us to preserve as much biodiversity as possible), but I support the process by which it was obtained.
In the interest of full disclosure, I work for the Dep't. of the Interior.
I support Salazar's ruling for one reason only:
Within the past eight years, we've had a White House who allowed religious and/or political beliefs to counter science in restricting federal spending. The current White House has promised that in this administration, science would be unfettered by religion or any other ideological views. As far as I'm concerned, many extreme pro-environmental views in this country have become nearly a religion unto many.
Salazar has stated that "a review of the January decision found that scientists do support the conclusion then that gray wolf populations in those areas (N. Rockies & W. Great Lakes regions, ..not Wyoming, Robert B.) were healthy". David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, supported the assertion that the wolf population had rebounded. "I'm satisfied, and most wolf biologists I know are satisfied, that wolf populations in both regions have been biologically recovered for the last five years."
The authority to make Endangered Species Act decisions is vested in the Secretary of the Interior, because the agencies with the relevant expertise are part of Interior. The White House does not have any of its own experts, so there's no reason to think that the White House would have anything to add to an ESA decision but an analysis of the political impact, and political and/or religious impact is exactly what ESA decisions should not be based upon. Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice, et al might have expected him to check with his boss, but I for one am glad that he didn't. Endangered Species Act designations are supposed to be based on one thing and one thing only....the science. The Interior Department claims that they did just that in this case, and as you and I both well know, Ken Salazar is hardly a conservative ideologue. We'll all soon find out whether the decision was based on the best available science as the process is examined and challenged in court.
On a final note, this White House has sadly reneged on its promise to de-politicize science by axing Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. There is no question in anyone's mind why the rug was pulled out from under a quarter century of scientific work that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It was a 'gift' for Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who vigorously opposed a nuclear waste depository in his state. This, after a 2001 report from the Nat'l. Research Council of the Nat'l. Academy of Sciences (our highest scientific adjudicator) approved Yucca as a disposition site for trans-uranic and high level waste storage, and almost all nuclear scientists had come out in favor of opening.
Alas, this comes as no surprise to anyone who has read Zuoyue Wang's excellent book titled 'In Sputnik's Shadow' on how presidents have used science since Eisenhower. "In today's world of rapid advancement in science and technology, we need to scrutinize more than ever how a president uses scientific information and advice to formulate policy."
Posted by Robert Bunch on August 3, 2009 at 10:15 PM
In my opinion basing the delisting of wolves on science is great and if the science is there and supports it that is one consideration. But what about the other science, that is the social science of the deeply ingrained cultural prejudice of some ranchers and some hunters against the wolves. Delisting the wolves and turning management over to the states, especially Idaho and Wyoming, will probably end up taking many of those wolves out of the picture. According to what I have read Idaho wants to reduce wolves by half when they are delisted. If that happens the science don't mean doodly squat. Polls have shown most people want wolves and until the cattle industry starts making some accomodations and showing an enlightened attitude about wolves (and I have read about some ranchers who have so it can be done) then I will be against delisting no matter what the science may say.
Posted by John Mumaw on August 3, 2009 at 11:57 PM
....I will be against delisting no matter what the science may say.
And there you have it, folks.
The quote above could be in reference to stem cell research, climate change, abortion, prairie dogs listed as an "endangered species", Yucca Mountain, evolution or staged lunar landings, depending on your ideological bent and how you substitute the word 'delisting' above.
John,
You make a strong argument. And I tend to tell people to not have knee jerk emotional respo nses to things without the benefit of thinking about it first. And here I am having a bit of an emotional reaction to this situation. If a scientist says that the wolf repopulation effort can now be considered a success, is that the bottom line? I can't imagine that there are no scientists out there with their own pet projects, or hidden agendas. Or maybe they are just willing to go with one side of the argument politicaly because of a bias. Scientists are imperfect human beings as well. And I am really quick to question the motives of any politician these days. You know they say if you want to catch a crook, just follow the money. I bet someone's pockets are getting lined out of this somewhere. I think that if ranchers have to take a few extra steps, and $$$ to pursue their business endeavors while coexisting with nature, than that's the way it should be. I would be interested in knowing just how many different packs are causing problems, and in how many areas. If selective culling for repeat offenders is necessary, then I can understand that. delisting the wolf, and letting any yahoo with a need to kill something have a go at it is not the intelligent solution in my opinion. And because most of my comments are simpathetic to the wolf, I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the rancher. I'm pretty sure that the whole cycle of life in the rockies is more complete, and healthy now that the wolf is back. I read about the elk, and bison herds being week, due to a lack of predation. Now thay have the reason to be strong and fast again. The weak get removed. I just would like any kind of control done in a controlled and limited way. I have never seen a wild wolf, or heard the cry of one in the darkness of night. I think that is one thing I want to experience before I die.
They don't call this the Hot Topics forum for nothing Thanks everyone for keeping the discussion informative and respectful!
I agree with John in part - it is very refreshing to me to see policy based on science. One factor not mentioned yet is that science comes in degrees of quality. I'll be curious to read the studies this was based on, evaluate the quality of the data, and see a disclosure of who paid for them before deciding how much confidence to place on the conclusion.
Guy
Posted by Robert Bunch on August 4, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Geez what happened to the first part of my sentence John? l guess by taking my statement out of context and not including the first part of my sentence you're saying that because I feel strongly about more factors than just the science being evaluated in determining whether or not wolves should be delisted I, and others like me with stong opinions on whatever issue, are extremists and part of the reason our country is so divided. Apparently your attitude is "if science says it then it must be so and no other considerations need be made." And I get the impression you may be a little self righteous about that. You said you work for D. I. Are you a D. I. scientist by any chance? If you are could this be clouding or prejudicing your views on this matter? I'm certainly not putting the knock on all science and scientistsj. I just don't don't share your unquestioned faith in either.
Personally I have very strong beliefs in the rights of animals to live out their lives unpersecuted by humans and if my "polarized" or "extremist" position is a problem for you sorry. Past history of humanity shows that wildlife has been on the losing end of the equation for thousands of years and in my opinion now it's time to overcompensate in their favor. If the ESA says delisting must be based only on the science what happens when they are delisted and every rancher and hunter goes gunning for them and the population starts to drop again like it did before when they were hunted and villified. Either we'll lose them again or they will have to be protected again. After all the time and money spent on wolves so far this just seems dumb to possibly lose them or have to do it all over again. Just because we have a few thousand or so wolves in a few states doesn't say recovered to me. When we have a few thousand more in many other states such as AZ, NM, CO, NV, OR, WA and maybe the northeast, with suitable habitats then they will be recovered. What we have now is just a "token" population and if they are delisted and hunted and "culled" pretty soon we'll only have a "token token" population. If you think I'm polarizing or extreme in my views fine. Thats your opinion. To me you sound like a "milqietoast supporter".
John, thanks for your response, sorry for 'throwing you to the wolves' so-to-speak
I completely agree with you, decisions should be based on sound science free of political tethering. I hope you are right and a thorough examination of whether this sicence is "sound" is made. I'm a scientist working for the DOC, and I for one find it hard to understand simply based on common sense. I can't fathom how reducing a very small number to begin with can benefit us all, I strongly suspect the ones who benefit will not be the elk and wolves, but maybe that's the cynic in me. On a side note, i agree with you about Yucca Mountain, a classic case of NIMBY. A huge waste of money, all due to political nonsense.
If you study the public uses made of wildlife, viewing wildlife, including wolves, generates bout four times as much revenue as hunting them. In pure economic terms, a wolf or a bear - at least in Alaska - is worth about four times as much a live as dead. The hunters and trappers make a lot of noise, and seem to control the boards of game, but it's the eyeballs on the critters make the money.
Alaska "game management" policy is famously antithetical to the data, and in the longer term may even be counterproductive (moose can over-graze). But recent Alaska politicians have been catering to the hunters, not to the economics or the science.
"I may not like or agree with the decision at all (I happen to believe that it's critically important for us to preserve as much biodiversity as possible), but I support the process by which it was obtained."
John, I would happily stand shoulder to shoulder with you in defense of process over special interest lobbying, religious fervor and boundless idealism. Your words were well stated but clearly not everyone wants to hear.
Many good points being made here from some very informed people. A pleasure to hear your thoughts. Just one word,one thought from an animal and nature lover. Co-exist! I really hate mosquitos but other species depend on them to survive and exist. Each and every species is important to obtain that delicate balance of our natural world. Its a shame our government has to be involved in making a decision of what is right for the wolf. Politics Ron
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 27, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Hey Folks,
I thought I'd take a few minutes to write on this subject while I sit and wait for some clouds to clear (I probably have until October for that to happen :) ).
It's interesting that with all this talk about "the science", not a single link to a single source on this subject appears in the thread - so maybe 'the science' isn't as vital to many of the positions posted as some would have us believe, eh? :) that makes it easier, and I'll follow suit.
FWIW, John Murnaw's comments on 'the process' are on mostly on track, but also a little misleading:
an analysis of the political impact, and political and/or religious impact is exactly what ESA decisions should not be based upon. Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice, et al might have expected him to check with his boss, but I for one am glad that he didn't. Endangered Species Act designations are supposed to be based on one thing and one thing only....the science.
Regarding specifically listings and delistings, this commentary is correct. But many decisions regarding the ESA are not simply listings or delistings, and THOSE decisions are not supposed to be based on science only - designating critical habitat, for example, one of the fundamental purposes of the ESA, includes political and economic ramifications as well - and most frequently (rightly or wrongly) those factors override any of the science involved. This is a vital function and highly contentious one, of the ESA, and it's NOT based purely on "the science".
Secondly, more often than not challenges to listings and delistings by various conservation groups are made not by questioning the science, but flaws in how the relevant agency (usually the US F&WS) followed mandated procedure - violations of the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) are frequently upheld by the courts, whilst it tends to be rare that the court finds against the science presented by the F&WS - if for no other reason than the court typically gives deference to the Govt agency (over NGO, developers, etc) on matters of science. For example from what I recall, a recent decision to relist the great Lakes Basin wolf population was made because of an APA violation (insufficient public comment period), and had nothing to do with science at all.
All that said:
The wolf population in the Norther Rocky Mountains met the written criteria for delisting, and 2 out of 3 states presented management proposals that met with F&WS criteria, so the delisting is hard to argue with. It'll be interesting to see if the injunction currently sought by EarthJustice (to be decided on Monday) is upheld by the court - the state of Idaho has already sold numerous wolf hunting tags, and they'll have to be refunded if the court finds against the F&WS decision.
Good to hear from you Carl--hope you had a productive summer!
Posted by Steve Foss on August 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I'm a wolf lover. Have been as long as I can remember. I moved to Ely so I could be close to and photograph wolves, and the long days spent in that pursuit have moved me deeply.
That being said, wolves are no more or less sacred than any other animal, and once they meet the de-listing population goals, they should be de-listed. Period.
And while five years ago I wouldn't have said this, I say it now. I think some limited hunting/trapping seasons are in order. I believe this because there are more and more accounts of wolves in very close proximity to humans, wolves that are showing no fear or are actually aggressive. Wolves have reclaimed former range as the populations have expanded, and in many cases these areas are surprisingly densely populated with people, which was not the case when the wolf was extirpated from those areas.
Wolves are becoming habituated to people. Sooner or later, unless wolves are taught some additional fear of humans, there will be more attacks, and such a thing will be bad for wolves and people alike.
Three times now I've had a wolf within 20-30 feet of me in the wild while I was photographing it. Unbaited, spontaneous encounters. In no case did any of these three animals show any hesitation about approaching me closely. One, a black wolf, is a member of a pack that gets fed regularly by a couple people outside Ely, and that's REALLY a recipe for disaster. At one point I had to hold up my hand and say "stop" when a wolf was approaching me at a steady walk and came inside 20 feet. It did so.
While I cherish those encounters, and love to be in the proximity of wolves, careful and limited harvest of the species need not be the wolf-hate fest that went on in this country and led to listing in the first place. I know numbers of hunters who also love having the wolf in the country and are deeply engaged when they see or hear wolves. I've talked with them about this, and they say that to take a wolf would be a life-changing experience.
Anyway, some hopefully coherent but also somewhat rambling thoughts about wolves on a rainy Firday morning.
Wow, to be honest im a bit blown away by your response, Steve.
I guess i find it a bit confusing how one can profess to "love" an animal and yet want to see them killed. I gather that the main reason is that you are concerned for human safety. I am not convinced from what I've read that the threat now is significantly greater than it was 10, 20 or 50 years ago. You say that "wolves are becoming habituated to people" (ironic that people are apparently not becoming habituated to wolves) and I wonder why that is the case. If people are feeding them, that's obviously a stupid thing to do and one would hope that they would be educated not to (or prosecuted if they continue!). If it is, as you mentioned, simply an increased human population, well then call me crazy but maybe there is a human population problem and not wolf (hmmm...500,000,000 people...5,000 wolves) But, I guess I can't subscribe to the premise that an increased wolf population inevitably must lead to negative encounters with humans. Or that killing them in large numbers will "teach them fear" and save them from further disaster.
In fairness, I have to confess that while I deeply respect hunters who use their kill (for one thing, my family tree is a long line of hunters), I dont hunt and have no desire to hunt. Trophy hunting, which this will essentially amount to, is completely foreign to me, I can't relate in the slightest. How the killing can be a "life-changing experience" (well, it certainly is for the wolf!) boggles my mind. You mention "harvesting" the species as if it is wheat. The wolf may not be any more sacred than any other animal, but as you pointed out, its history with man has been different! I really hope the wolf-hate fest that you mentioned doesnt repeat, guess I'm just not as trusting as you with our environmental record.
Anyhow, those are just my 'rambling' thoughts, yours have a little more force since youve actually had experience with the animals, so I appreciate your input!
Posted by Steve Foss on August 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Stan, thanks for commenting. I'm not really comfortable with my position either, though I do believe it's quite possible to love/respect an animal species and still allow it to be hunted. After being close to wolves the last six years instead of loving them from a distance, as I had before, some of my own romantic notions have been reluctantly replaced with a more pragmatic approach. I'd be the last one to hunt or trap a wolf. I just couldn't bring myself to do that.
I'm not going to argue any of the points you or others have raised. I simply wanted to add the perspective of one single person who has spent a lot of time on the ground in wolf country.
For a detailed look at a large number of wolf/human encounters in Alaska, Canada and a few in Minnesota, go to http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.reports and page down to the "Wolves" section and download the pdf titled: A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and Canada. It was compiled in 2002, before the man was killed and eaten by wolves in Saskatchewan, and for those who have an interest in wolves and mankind it will make for interesting and educational reading.
Cheers, all!
Posted by Stan Rose on August 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Will check it out--thanks Steve!
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 29, 2009 at 11:47 PM
hey Steve
To be fair, one would also want to see a report published by the wolves, perhaps, of wolf-human encounters where people were aggressive, defensive, predatory, etc, no?
Seriously, a report digs up 80 cases in the last one hundred years where wolves didn't show a more commonly found fear of people (a fear that is almost exclusively a function of the unmitigated brutality we've enacted on these creatures), and fewer than half involved actual aggressive behavior, a number of those involved dogs as well as people, only 16 cases involved actual bites, and only 6 cases were deemed to result in 'severe bites'? I don't see that as anything of consequence at all - certainly not an argument to shoot or delist wolves.
While I'm not completely opposed to hunting, I think it needs to be called what it is (hunting, not a 'harvest') and I think it needs to stand on its own terms .. not the pretense of instilling fear in wolves, and the ilk. What you call "habituated wolves" ( "Wolves are becoming habituated to people. Sooner or later, unless wolves are taught some additional fear of humans, there will be more attacks, and such a thing will be bad for wolves and people alike") hinges on the premise that wolves must be afraid of people. Wolves, like bears, are not immediately dangerous to people simply because they haven't learned to fear us. Rest assured, I'd MUCH rather run across a grizzly in Katmai NP, where they're well-habituated to people, then in the backcountry in the mtns where I have no idea how they might respond.
But 2 more points on this comment:
a) - regardless of whether or not wolves are 'taught additional fear of humans', there will be attacks
b) - why is it axiomatic that an attack is 'bad for wolves?
You outline some experiences that are very powerful moments in our lives; having a wild wolf come so closeto you - yet reverting to allowing hunting and trapping of these creatures will almost completely end the potential for that kind of experience. In your own words, "While I cherish those encounters, and love to be in the proximity of wolves, careful and limited harvest of the species need not be the wolf-hate fest that went on in this country and led " - I bet ya a dollar that while "a careful and limited hunting of the species need not be a wolf-hate fest", it'll absolutely mean those encounters you cherish won't happen again.
Lastly, you wrote:
That being said, wolves are no more or less sacred than any other animal, and once they meet the de-listing population goals, they should be de-listed. Period.
I do agree - but also feel that a review of the goals is equally critical.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Steve Foss on August 30, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Carl, as always you make your points forcefully.
But as I already mentioned, I'm uninterested in debating the issue, settling instead for picking up the aforementioned microphone for a few moments to deliver one person's perspective and then relinquishing it after that.
Cheers, all!
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 30, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Hey Stan
Thanks - I'm having an OK summer .. but the fact that I'm here right now indicates it's not as productive as I'd like it to be .. perhaps the rain will ease tomorrow.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Douglas Graham on September 5, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Loved reading all this great information over my coffee this morning. Much better then the paper. This is a great forum and its also full of not only well-intentioned people but also informed people. That was some of the most interesting reading I've done in a while and I leaned quit a bit about the Western wolf plight. We are not lucky enough to have wolves in VA but I'm glad to know that the population is strong enough in the West to even have this debate. Thanks to all for posting their thoughts.
Posted by Larry Fischer on October 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM
All human actions are fraught with unintended consequence.
I think most major issues, however, are motivated by cash. So...... follow the money trail.
As for Monatana ranchers, I've talked with several. They aren't flashy; they do have to make a living. In their minds wolves can be a drag down on production. They have the 3 S's: shoot, shovel, shutup. No press.
Perhaps seeking a balance in this crowded world is the best for which we can hope.
But then, who establishes the point of "balance"?
Never-ending story.
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 6, 2010 at 7:00 PM
Hey Folks,
The delisting of the wolves in the Lower 48 was overturned yet again by Judge Molloy recently. Here is the court ruling.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Mark Stahlke on September 7, 2010 at 12:24 AM
The Denver Post is reporting wolves are in the cross hairs again.
BILLINGS, Mont. — Government agencies are seeking broad new authority to ramp up killings and removals of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes...
It sounds ugly.
Various proposals would gas pups in their dens, surgically sterilize adult wolves and allow "conservation" or "research" hunts to drive down the predators' numbers.
Discussion
35 repliesIn May, SI Salazar reaffirmed the Bush decision to delist the Gray Wolf from Endangered Species protection. I believe there are 1500 or so wolves in the Rockies. Butch Otter (gov ID) is already chomping at the bit to shoot the first wolf, they plan on killing at least half of the wolves there. Salazar claims that "science" backs up the idea that the population is sufficient and wolves should be managed as other big game is. Seems to me, wolves are not elk, and both species did just fine for eons without our interference. Would really like to hear from somone who can defend Salazar's move.
To illustrate, I know folks first hand you would think would be on opposite sides of the issue: A family with a large ranch in Montana onto which wolves have moved, and greenie non-hunting suburban dwellers. The rancher is keeping his mouth shut in the face of other ranchers crowded up to the microphone, rather than lose his footing with them. The wolves have dramatically thinned the elk on his place, and he's lost a couple of his prize cow dogs to wolves right in his yard. His attitude? "Send me some more wolves cuzz they're the first damn thing to come along and keep the elk out of my alfalfa fields. And those dogs were too stupid to live anyway." The suburban greenies? They've lost a dog and a 4-H sheep to wolves edging up into the suburban areas. Just like the rancher, they're leery of the microphone grabbers in the anti-crowd. They're attitude: "It's gone too far when the wolves close in on the towns. They're worse than coyotes for noshing on pets."
Both parties agree that there is some sensible compromise between kill and no-kill, but it's never going to be found in the atmosphere set up by the folks on either side currently dominating microphones.
I actually sat in a bar in jackson Wyoming a couple of years ago. I was with a local who loved to hunt. He spent a lot of time trying to tell me that they should open up Grand Teton, and Yellowstone to grizzly, and wolf hunting. His argument was that the elk populations were being desimated by the two predator species. Also that there were grizzlies everywhere in the Grand Tetons! He didn't seem to care that the safe havens that these parks are, is why we can go and see these great animals in the first place. As soon as they have to start dodging bullets, and humans, they will be off into the high country where we don't bother them. I guess then the economy of the towns in these regions would have to shift from ecotourism, to hunting, primarily. I don't really have any problem with hunting, or the people that enjoy it. But me personally, I'll go down to the store and buy a ribeye, before I would destroy the beauty of the living creature itself. I know it can be a little hypocritical, because a cow has to be slaughtered in order for me to enjoy my steak. But it isn't exactly the same thing.
Chris
Let me stop here and explain my attitude toward "culling." If only those packs of wolves that had developed a dependence on beef were killed, I'd grudgingly agree to it with some qualifications. But I suspect that the "culling" is going to be done by the numbers: "let's kill n% of the n wolves that live in our state," and that's too indiscriminate. Besides, the remaining wolves will breed to fill the niches no longer occupied by the wolves that are killed. It's okay if you like to kill wolves, but it's not going to stop the wolves from preying on cattle before they are shot.
Back to hard decisions. We like the wildness of the Rockies, and many of us like it better now that there are wolves living in the mountains. But this is real wild, not Bambi-wild, and real elk and real cattle get killed and eaten by real wolves. If you don't like your livestock supplying sustenance to the inhabitants of the wild, move into town and keep your livestock in well- and electrically-fenced feedlots. If you don't want your horses killed by cougars, don't keep them in confined corrals (if the horses are healthy and have enough room... I'm mentioning different prey and predator here because I don't have first-hand experience of cattle and wolves, but I do have it of horses and cougars). In the extra-legal, entirely natural scheme of things, human beings don't have a right to live wherever they want in whatever state of security that they'd like.
In the great myths of our (white) culture, there are heroes like Beowulf who take on monsters like Grendel. Closer to home, Natty Bumppo, who kept on moving west because he found the smell of woodsmoke reminding him that too many people had begun to live in his wilderness. Beowulf and Natty Bumppo lived on the edges, the places where human beings ventured only at risk and always with a (heady) sense of danger. The kind of literature that comes after that with heroes has people living in towns and cities, the places where civilized human beings belong. The heroes are exciting to read about. But they don't live where we live, and they wouldn't fit in if they did (Natty got arrested for hunting deer out of season; what season?--he needed meat).
There's no solution to the problem posed by wolves now living in modest numbers in areas where the human population keeps increasing and increasing. It seems to me that the greater problem is that there are too many people.
(When it got so that we couldn't stand having animals that we loved killed by wildlife that we respected, my husband and I sold the ranch and moved to town.)
Robert: the original title was "Kill the Wolves!" Which was meant to be attention-getting and
to the point, unfortunately it scared away John M, who i really would like to hear from, because im sure his arguments are well thought out and informed. Needless to say i agree with you, one look at Wyoming (where Salazar is apparently not so anxious to allow the hunting to recommence!) when hunting was allowed tells the story.
Rosemarie, Chris, all i can say is i am in complete agreement. Thanks for the responses.
In the interest of full disclosure, I work for the Dep't. of the Interior.
I support Salazar's ruling for one reason only:
Within the past eight years, we've had a White House who allowed religious and/or political beliefs to counter science in restricting federal spending. The current White House has promised that in this administration, science would be unfettered by religion or any other ideological views. As far as I'm concerned, many extreme pro-environmental views in this country have become nearly a religion unto many.
Salazar has stated that "a review of the January decision found that scientists do support the conclusion then that gray wolf populations in those areas (N. Rockies & W. Great Lakes regions, ..not Wyoming, Robert B.) were healthy". David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, supported the assertion that the wolf population had rebounded. "I'm satisfied, and most wolf biologists I know are satisfied, that wolf populations in both regions have been biologically recovered for the last five years."
The authority to make Endangered Species Act decisions is vested in the Secretary of the Interior, because the agencies with the relevant expertise are part of Interior. The White House does not have any of its own experts, so there's no reason to think that the White House would have anything to add to an ESA decision but an analysis of the political impact, and political and/or religious impact is exactly what ESA decisions should not be based upon. Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice, et al might have expected him to check with his boss, but I for one am glad that he didn't. Endangered Species Act designations are supposed to be based on one thing and one thing only....the science. The Interior Department claims that they did just that in this case, and as you and I both well know, Ken Salazar is hardly a conservative ideologue. We'll all soon find out whether the decision was based on the best available science as the process is examined and challenged in court.
On a final note, this White House has sadly reneged on its promise to de-politicize science by axing Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. There is no question in anyone's mind why the rug was pulled out from under a quarter century of scientific work that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It was a 'gift' for Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who vigorously opposed a nuclear waste depository in his state. This, after a 2001 report from the Nat'l. Research Council of the Nat'l. Academy of Sciences (our highest scientific adjudicator) approved Yucca as a disposition site for trans-uranic and high level waste storage, and almost all nuclear scientists had come out in favor of opening.
Alas, this comes as no surprise to anyone who has read Zuoyue Wang's excellent book titled 'In Sputnik's Shadow' on how presidents have used science since Eisenhower.
"In today's world of rapid advancement in science and technology, we need to scrutinize more than ever how a president uses scientific information and advice to formulate policy."
And there you have it, folks.
The quote above could be in reference to stem cell research, climate change, abortion, prairie dogs listed as an "endangered species", Yucca Mountain, evolution or staged lunar landings, depending on your ideological bent and how you substitute the word 'delisting' above.
Is it any wonder our nation is so polarized?
You make a strong argument. And I tend to tell people to not have knee jerk emotional respo nses to things without the benefit of thinking about it first. And here I am having a bit of an emotional reaction to this situation. If a scientist says that the wolf repopulation effort can now be considered a success, is that the bottom line? I can't imagine that there are no scientists out there with their own pet projects, or hidden agendas. Or maybe they are just willing to go with one side of the argument politicaly because of a bias. Scientists are imperfect human beings as well. And I am really quick to question the motives of any politician these days. You know they say if you want to catch a crook, just follow the money. I bet someone's pockets are getting lined out of this somewhere. I think that if ranchers have to take a few extra steps, and $$$ to pursue their business endeavors while coexisting with nature, than that's the way it should be. I would be interested in knowing just how many different packs are causing problems, and in how many areas. If selective culling for repeat offenders is necessary, then I can understand that. delisting the wolf, and letting any yahoo with a need to kill something have a go at it is not the intelligent solution in my opinion. And because most of my comments are simpathetic to the wolf, I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the rancher. I'm pretty sure that the whole cycle of life in the rockies is more complete, and healthy now that the wolf is back. I read about the elk, and bison herds being week, due to a lack of predation. Now thay have the reason to be strong and fast again. The weak get removed. I just would like any kind of control done in a controlled and limited way. I have never seen a wild wolf, or heard the cry of one in the darkness of night. I think that is one thing I want to experience before I die.
Regards,
Chris
I agree with John in part - it is very refreshing to me to see policy based on science. One factor not mentioned yet is that science comes in degrees of quality. I'll be curious to read the studies this was based on, evaluate the quality of the data, and see a disclosure of who paid for them before deciding how much confidence to place on the conclusion.
Guy
Personally I have very strong beliefs in the rights of animals to live out their lives unpersecuted by humans and if my "polarized" or "extremist" position is a problem for you sorry. Past history of humanity shows that wildlife has been on the losing end of the equation for thousands of years and in my opinion now it's time to overcompensate in their favor. If the ESA says delisting must be based only on the science what happens when they are delisted and every rancher and hunter goes gunning for them and the population starts to drop again like it did before when they were hunted and villified. Either we'll lose them again or they will have to be protected again. After all the time and money spent on wolves so far this just seems dumb to possibly lose them or have to do it all over again. Just because we have a few thousand or so wolves in a few states doesn't say recovered to me. When we have a few thousand more in many other states such as AZ, NM, CO, NV, OR, WA and maybe the northeast, with suitable habitats then they will be recovered. What we have now is just a "token" population and if they are delisted and hunted and "culled" pretty soon we'll only have a "token token" population. If you think I'm polarizing or extreme in my views fine. Thats your opinion. To me you sound like a "milqietoast supporter".
I completely agree with you, decisions should be based on sound science free of political tethering. I hope you are right and a thorough examination of whether this sicence is "sound" is made. I'm a scientist working for the DOC, and I for one find it hard to understand simply based on common sense. I can't fathom how reducing a very small number to begin with can benefit us all, I strongly suspect the ones who benefit will not be the elk and wolves, but maybe that's the cynic in me. On a side note, i agree with you about Yucca Mountain, a classic case of NIMBY. A huge waste of money, all due to political nonsense.
Alaska "game management" policy is famously antithetical to the data, and in the longer term may even be counterproductive (moose can over-graze). But recent Alaska politicians have been catering to the hunters, not to the economics or the science.
"I may not like or agree with the decision at all (I happen to believe that it's critically important for us to preserve as much biodiversity as possible), but I support the process by which it was obtained."
John, I would happily stand shoulder to shoulder with you in defense of process over special interest lobbying, religious fervor and boundless idealism. Your words were well stated but clearly not everyone wants to hear.
I thought I'd take a few minutes to write on this subject while I sit and wait for some clouds to clear (I probably have until October for that to happen :) ).
It's interesting that with all this talk about "the science", not a single link to a single source on this subject appears in the thread - so maybe 'the science' isn't as vital to many of the positions posted as some would have us believe, eh? :) that makes it easier, and I'll follow suit.
FWIW, John Murnaw's comments on 'the process' are on mostly on track, but also a little misleading:
Regarding specifically listings and delistings, this commentary is correct. But many decisions regarding the ESA are not simply listings or delistings, and THOSE decisions are not supposed to be based on science only - designating critical habitat, for example, one of the fundamental purposes of the ESA, includes political and economic ramifications as well - and most frequently (rightly or wrongly) those factors override any of the science involved. This is a vital function and highly contentious one, of the ESA, and it's NOT based purely on "the science".
Secondly, more often than not challenges to listings and delistings by various conservation groups are made not by questioning the science, but flaws in how the relevant agency (usually the US F&WS) followed mandated procedure - violations of the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) are frequently upheld by the courts, whilst it tends to be rare that the court finds against the science presented by the F&WS - if for no other reason than the court typically gives deference to the Govt agency (over NGO, developers, etc) on matters of science. For example from what I recall, a recent decision to relist the great Lakes Basin wolf population was made because of an APA violation (insufficient public comment period), and had nothing to do with science at all.
All that said:
The wolf population in the Norther Rocky Mountains met the written criteria for delisting, and 2 out of 3 states presented management proposals that met with F&WS criteria, so the delisting is hard to argue with. It'll be interesting to see if the injunction currently sought by EarthJustice (to be decided on Monday) is upheld by the court - the state of Idaho has already sold numerous wolf hunting tags, and they'll have to be refunded if the court finds against the F&WS decision.
Cheers
Carl
That being said, wolves are no more or less sacred than any other animal, and once they meet the de-listing population goals, they should be de-listed. Period.
And while five years ago I wouldn't have said this, I say it now. I think some limited hunting/trapping seasons are in order. I believe this because there are more and more accounts of wolves in very close proximity to humans, wolves that are showing no fear or are actually aggressive. Wolves have reclaimed former range as the populations have expanded, and in many cases these areas are surprisingly densely populated with people, which was not the case when the wolf was extirpated from those areas.
Wolves are becoming habituated to people. Sooner or later, unless wolves are taught some additional fear of humans, there will be more attacks, and such a thing will be bad for wolves and people alike.
Three times now I've had a wolf within 20-30 feet of me in the wild while I was photographing it. Unbaited, spontaneous encounters. In no case did any of these three animals show any hesitation about approaching me closely. One, a black wolf, is a member of a pack that gets fed regularly by a couple people outside Ely, and that's REALLY a recipe for disaster. At one point I had to hold up my hand and say "stop" when a wolf was approaching me at a steady walk and came inside 20 feet. It did so.
While I cherish those encounters, and love to be in the proximity of wolves, careful and limited harvest of the species need not be the wolf-hate fest that went on in this country and led to listing in the first place. I know numbers of hunters who also love having the wolf in the country and are deeply engaged when they see or hear wolves. I've talked with them about this, and they say that to take a wolf would be a life-changing experience.
Anyway, some hopefully coherent but also somewhat rambling thoughts about wolves on a rainy Firday morning.
I guess i find it a bit confusing how one can profess to "love" an animal and yet want to see them killed. I gather that the main reason is that you are concerned for human safety. I am not convinced from what I've read that the threat now is significantly greater than it was 10, 20 or 50 years ago. You say that "wolves are becoming habituated to people" (ironic that people are apparently not becoming habituated to wolves) and I wonder why that is the case. If people are feeding them, that's obviously a stupid thing to do and one would hope that they would be educated not to (or prosecuted if they continue!). If it is, as you mentioned, simply an increased human population, well then call me crazy but maybe there is a human population problem and not wolf (hmmm...500,000,000 people...5,000 wolves) But, I guess I can't subscribe to the premise that an increased wolf population inevitably must lead to negative encounters with humans. Or that killing them in large numbers will "teach them fear" and save them from further disaster.
In fairness, I have to confess that while I deeply respect hunters who use their kill (for one thing, my family tree is a long line of hunters), I dont hunt and have no desire to hunt. Trophy hunting, which this will essentially amount to, is completely foreign to me, I can't relate in the slightest. How the killing can be a "life-changing experience" (well, it certainly is for the wolf!) boggles my mind. You mention "harvesting" the species as if it is wheat. The wolf may not be any more sacred than any other animal, but as you pointed out, its history with man has been different! I really hope the wolf-hate fest that you mentioned doesnt repeat, guess I'm just not as trusting as you with our environmental record.
Anyhow, those are just my 'rambling' thoughts, yours have a little more force since youve actually had experience with the animals, so I appreciate your input!
I'm not going to argue any of the points you or others have raised. I simply wanted to add the perspective of one single person who has spent a lot of time on the ground in wolf country.
For a detailed look at a large number of wolf/human encounters in Alaska, Canada and a few in Minnesota, go to http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.reports and page down to the "Wolves" section and download the pdf titled: A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and Canada. It was compiled in 2002, before the man was killed and eaten by wolves in Saskatchewan, and for those who have an interest in wolves and mankind it will make for interesting and educational reading.
Cheers, all!
To be fair, one would also want to see a report published by the wolves, perhaps, of wolf-human encounters where people were aggressive, defensive, predatory, etc, no?
Seriously, a report digs up 80 cases in the last one hundred years where wolves didn't show a more commonly found fear of people (a fear that is almost exclusively a function of the unmitigated brutality we've enacted on these creatures), and fewer than half involved actual aggressive behavior, a number of those involved dogs as well as people, only 16 cases involved actual bites, and only 6 cases were deemed to result in 'severe bites'? I don't see that as anything of consequence at all - certainly not an argument to shoot or delist wolves.
While I'm not completely opposed to hunting, I think it needs to be called what it is (hunting, not a 'harvest') and I think it needs to stand on its own terms .. not the pretense of instilling fear in wolves, and the ilk. What you call "habituated wolves" ( "Wolves are becoming habituated to people. Sooner or later, unless wolves are taught some additional fear of humans, there will be more attacks, and such a thing will be bad for wolves and people alike") hinges on the premise that wolves must be afraid of people. Wolves, like bears, are not immediately dangerous to people simply because they haven't learned to fear us. Rest assured, I'd MUCH rather run across a grizzly in Katmai NP, where they're well-habituated to people, then in the backcountry in the mtns where I have no idea how they might respond.
But 2 more points on this comment:
a) - regardless of whether or not wolves are 'taught additional fear of humans', there will be attacks
b) - why is it axiomatic that an attack is 'bad for wolves?
You outline some experiences that are very powerful moments in our lives; having a wild wolf come so closeto you - yet reverting to allowing hunting and trapping of these creatures will almost completely end the potential for that kind of experience. In your own words, "While I cherish those encounters, and love to be in the proximity of wolves, careful and limited harvest of the species need not be the wolf-hate fest that went on in this country and led " - I bet ya a dollar that while "a careful and limited hunting of the species need not be a wolf-hate fest", it'll absolutely mean those encounters you cherish won't happen again.
Lastly, you wrote:
I do agree - but also feel that a review of the goals is equally critical.
Cheers
Carl
But as I already mentioned, I'm uninterested in debating the issue, settling instead for picking up the aforementioned microphone for a few moments to deliver one person's perspective and then relinquishing it after that.
Cheers, all!
Thanks - I'm having an OK summer .. but the fact that I'm here right now indicates it's not as productive as I'd like it to be .. perhaps the rain will ease tomorrow.
Cheers
Carl
I think most major issues, however, are motivated by cash. So...... follow the money trail.
As for Monatana ranchers, I've talked with several. They aren't flashy; they do have to make a living. In their minds wolves can be a drag down on production. They have the 3 S's: shoot, shovel, shutup. No press.
Perhaps seeking a balance in this crowded world is the best for which we can hope.
But then, who establishes the point of "balance"?
Never-ending story.
the fisch
The delisting of the wolves in the Lower 48 was overturned yet again by Judge Molloy recently. Here is the court ruling.
Cheers
Carl
It sounds ugly.
Here is the story from AP.