I did it. Jeeze,why do they think its okay to kill off so many beautiful creatures?!

--
RenoxKairi forever.[link]

OK, I don't have a problem with you wanting to be politically active, but the wolf in the northwest is not still endangered!

I you look at the original recovery plan that the US Fish and Wildlife department put into affect, recovery was 10 breeding pairs in each area for 3 consecutive years. This has easily been accomplished.

Second, look at the population growth. It is currently exponential. Idaho had over 700 wolves at the start of this year. Expected pups was over 250, with very high survival rate. With what federal trappers kill, the population was expected to grow to over 900 animals.

Now for the other mis-information in the post. The federal government is proposing the de-listing of the grey wolf, as the recovery plan had expected all along. The goals have been met. They are not proposing killing any wolves, and the federal government will actually end up killing fewer wolves every year. Instead, management will be turned over to the states, and yes, with the populations where they are, there will be hunting of the animals. In most cases, this will stabilize the population, but as a big game species, it will not wipe them out.

I live with them, have seen and heard them not only while camping, but near my house. It is not a bad thing to have a large predator afraid of humans. They are currently not. We have attacks on people and dogs. We had one individual in northern Idaho have a pack of dogs killed, and only got out himself due to one of his dogs biting the wolf while severely wounded and dieing. We have had Forest Service personal pulled out of wilderness by helicopters (this is a no-no except in dire emergencies) due to packs circling, and hunting them.

Not only is the wolf population no longer threatened, it is currently growing uncontrollably.

Sorry for the rant, but please research beyond the small groups before attacking this. This is and has always been part of the wolf recovery plan.

--
My art account ~pricecw w/some stock

I also dont want to be rude, and Im also sorry that there are attacks, but they wouldn't attack if we weren't on their land or hunting their food. Yellowstone reports state clearly that the wolves won't attack humans without provocation. They were there first and obviously don't plan on moving nor should they have to.
2nd, if your numbers are correct, and Bush does what he's planning to, then their will only be 200 animals left, and as an entire species, thats not so hot considering there are over six billion humans. I am not in any way implying that Im into population control by any stretch, just comparing numbers.
And thirdly, if your getting your information from the government, consider this. If you were planning on murdering half of an endangered species, wouldnt you do the appropriate footwork to cover your ass? They aren't amateurs, and know how to get what they want. If thats not where you got your info, then disregard this paragraph.
Sorry about the man who was attacked, and I hope he lived, but if your out in their habitat without adequate protection, then dont you take that chance?
Thanks for caring enough to reply, and also sorry about the long reply.

--
Yes im a natural blue! -Dori

That wat IM sayin!!! Thanks for your help!!! Ur the best EVER!!!

--
Yes im a natural blue! -Dori

No offense, just think that a lot of "information" going out is actually "mis-information".

As for attacking, wolf attacks on people is increasing with population gain, just like mountain lion attacks. Both are hunting for food. This is not just in the US, but Canada also.

Again, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, the federal government is not planning anything. When the wolf is de-listed, the state's will be doing anything that is done.

As far as being on their land, native wolves were and are extinct most of Idaho. Further, these animals are not out in the wilderness, they are in communities, they are in the foothills of the largest city in Idaho. They are in the middle of areas with people.

Never be sorry about expressing your opinion, that is what makes this country the one I want to be in. I am just trying to give another view, one from the inside, of this debate.

Also, when the recovery plan was proposed, the holding capacity for wolves in Idaho was put forth as 600-750 animals. We are now over that. What will happen is the game will be over-harvested (the wolves are really bad about that around here), and then the population will plummet from starvation. At that time, it will be really bad human/wolf interaction.

Although a number of people will dis-agree, I think the best chance for long-term wolf survival is have them be a big game species. A number of species have been preserved and conserved by hunters. One thing hunters want is game to hunt, and they pay huge amounts every year to preserve and ensure stable populations of game.

--
My art account ~pricecw w/some stock

Thank you for this information, I appriciate having someone that this affects directly, but from what I've been reading, Bush want to kill the wolves because they are preying on elk that hunters usually kill. There arent enough for both species to prey on. Do hunters in your area usually hunt elk?
Maybe, they are in the communities because these communities used to be where they found food, have their children and generally thrive, which they won't if this plan continues. 200 animals isn't a thriving population!
Let me know if I've got my facts straight, thanks

--
Yes im a natural blue! -Dori

Yes, we hunt elk here.

I just saw mid-year stats for elk in Idaho. These are tentative, and usually low.

In Idaho, the mid-year population estimate was for 788 wolves in 75 packs with 41 breeding pairs

Population recovery in Idaho was 10 breeding pairs, that is defined as a stable population.

Across the northern Rockies this year the total estimated wolf population is 1,545 wolves in 179 packs with 105 breeding pairs

Delisting was defined to happen (stable sustainable population) with 30 breeding pairs, 10 in each of the 3 recovery zones.

As you can see, all goals have been met. Again, this is going from Federal managment to State management. After delisting, Bush, and the Federal government are not allowed to manage the animals in any way, the states will do that.

Currently, this year, federal trappers have killed 46 wolves (usually do to human/wolf, or livestock/wolf interaction). Wolves have killed a confirmed 36 cows and 150 sheep (note it is very difficult for a rancher to get a kill confirmed).

Now if we look at hunting of mountain line in the state of Idaho (another large predator managed as a big game animal). Hunters harvested 329 animals in 2004 (last year statistics are available). The population is not only stable but increasing. These tags are managed the same way that Idaho Fish and Game want the wolf tags managed.

Now, wrt the animals being in communities because this is where they used to find food. Remember, these are animals that were extinct in this state. They don't have traditional range. They were re-introduced into the Yellowstone eco-system from Canada, so the only potential range is possibly Canada. They are expanding into communities because the population is so high, there isn't enough room for traditional pack ranges in the wilderness (and we have the largest amount of wilderness in the lower 48).

Finally, by definition 100 animals is considered a thriving and stable population in any of the 3 recovery zones, so by definition (Recovery plan put into place at the time of re-introduction being the definition), 200 animals would be a stable population. However, this is not the plan of the Idaho Fish and Game (I know, I follow their plans closely).

--
My art account ~pricecw w/some stock

I still don't seem to understand how only a few hundred animals is a thriving population! Am I missing something? Even polar bears have 25 THOUSAND animals! There are 3 thousand komodo dragons! Even the Giant Panda, which is very endangered has been counted at 16 hundred animals! And even though these are extremely low for these animals, the numbers you've been giving me are signifiantly lower! And even if we do come to an agreement, the public speaking time for the wolf bill is over, so there isn't anything anybody can do now. Tis' in bigger hands

--
Yes im a natural blue! -Dori

No worries, how endangered something is has to do with where it is on the food chain and how it breeds. In Idaho (I talk Idaho because it is the case I follow the closest, other areas are similar), the estimate at the time of re-introduction for the holding capacity for the state was about 650 wolves. After that, the damage done by the wolves will keep the populations of the animals they depend on from being able to reproduce fast enough to allow the number of wolves to eat without impacting that species. This doesn't mean the population will cap at that number, but can peak higher, but when the species they depend on collapses, so will they.

So the Giant Panda, may have 1 baby every couple of years. In this case, you need more animals to reproduce (I do not know the infant mortality stats for Pandas). For a wolf, a liter can be 8-12 animals, very low infant mortality (last I read it was 90-95% survival of pups). It is not common, but a alpha female can have 2 liters a year. Also, the wolf will live for a large number of years, so the population can sustain itself with fewer breeding pairs.

This is why, when the proposal for re-introduction was put on the table, 10 breeding pairs in each of the 3 areas was considered a tremendous success.

So, lets look at Idaho again, we have 41 breeding pairs. If we run conservative numbers here, and say they have 6 pups each that live, that is 246 pups in a year (again that is a conservative number, really between 250 and 500 animals will be born next year). See where this is going?

Now, with this kind of birth rate, and the current death rate (very few have yet reached natural death ages), the population is growing exponentially. If they managed the species as a big game species, and hunters took 2/3's of the number of animals born each year, the population would still be increasing. That is hunters taking 200+ animals a year, and you still have population growth.

--
My art account ~pricecw w/some stock