Feds sued over park elk plan

Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on March 26, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I agree with the idea that for large park areas that releasing wolves will help restore the natural balance, this lawsuit is another example of the tree huggers run amok. They don't like something so they sue. One premise of law is that a party has to have standing in order to sue. Just where in the forest do law students and their professor at DU have standing in this case?

On the other hand, what yo-yo at the Park Service allowed the herd size to get twice as big as it should be? Careful and early culling would have prevented that. That person should be fired.

This case is about Dumb and Dumber. Idiot law professor and idiot civil servant. Fire them all.

Posted by Scott on March 26, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Part of the problem (besides the eco-freaks) is that the scum in congress has forbade hunting in National Parks. I'm all for a ban on recreational hunting in the National Parks. However, the way that the alcoholics (congress) wrote the law, the park's manager cannot open the park to culling via controlled hunting. Controlled hunting is the most effective way to deal with this problem. While trapping and relocating is "feel good" stuff for the eco-freaks, it is not effective. If the pedophiles (congress) would give the park managers the authority to actually manage the parks, then this problem would never have occurred. Of course giving authority to someone else is hardy done by the philanderers (congress).

Scott

Posted by CWW on March 26, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, releasing wolves in Yellowstone has been effective in controlling the elk and deer populations. However, Yellowstone is about 3 times larger than RMNP. There are also vast areas of open land around Yellowstone, and every year the elk migrate out of the park into other parts of Wyoming.

The area aroudn RMNP is not open, there are towns and ranches. Do the eco-nuts think that wolves will be "nice" and stay within the park boundries? Not likely. They will go where the food is, even if that means the ranchers sheep, cattle, chickens, etc. THEN the ranchers and locals will have to kill the wolves to protect their property. Then there will be more lawsuits for that.

Guess it will keep those law students in the money when they graduate.

Posted by gary on March 26, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More waste of time and money by a bunch of idiots. "Educated idiots that is.....law professors and students know best??"

Then there is that nutcase that loves wolves and calls immigrants ignorant about wolves...

Nuff Said

Posted by Oroboros on March 26, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Just where in the forest do law students and their professor at DU have standing in this case?"

The parks are a shared resource that belong to all of us.

Wolves are commonly known to prey on the weak/sick/slow, removing diseased and crippled animals from the herds and allowing the healthy ones who survive to have more available food. In some cases, it could be the difference between the whole herd starving in a bad winter vs a smaller herd surviving.

Human hunters, on the other hand, tend to go for the biggest, baddest bulls with the best trophy racks. Human culling at best breaks even for the Elk's welfare, and more than likely cause weak/old to survive at the expensive of the stronger and healthier, thereby weakening the whole herd.

Posted by Theoldguy on March 26, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps what is needed is a counter suit naming the professor and students as creating a giant "make work" project that has nothing to do with reality. Which, in reality, is an effort to teach the kids another way to perpetuate stealing from an already impotent public.

Posted by commknightj on March 26, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obviously, Oroboros knows nothing about hunting except what pablum he/she regurgitates from the tree huggers/PETA. And if it really belongs to all of us, why discriminate against hunters?
It's called habitat, and hunters do more for Colorado's natural habitat than most other states. As mentioned, the area around RMNP is not open.
Wolves do need to be reintroduced to the area but it would take time and patience to reduce the herd to acceptable levels. If hunting had been allowed, the herd would have never reached the out of proportion levels it is at today.
Let's consider a plan which allows both the reintroduction of wolves to the area and limited hunting. That way, 'everyone' has the feeling that it really does 'belong to all of us'.

Posted by Oroboros on March 26, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

commknightj: So when you hunt you look for the weak and sick to cull the herds? And then you feed that to your family too right?

Oh wait, maybe I'm just putting words in your mouth. Doesn't feel good, does it?

Posted by OneCreek on March 26, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am going to tread dangerously here, and make an assumption that most, if not those who live and work in cities have penned all of the previous commentary. Therefore, thoughts and commentary on the subject outside of that which reflects on certain legal perspectives is mostly little more than "abstract", rather than objective.
I live and work in the North Fork Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Not only do I live in said District, but also my property is totally surrounded by the National Forest. Residing here year-around since the year the wolves were established in the area, 1995, perhaps my observations should be of some consideration regarding this debate.
Living here as I do, observation of the natural world around me is secondhand practice. I see things that the casual visitor does not, and for that matter, even the dedicated hunter or the naturalist. By the time their observational talents begin to truly and measurably improve, they must leave for more civilized environs. Conversely, this grand landscape is my constant companion.
The "pro-wolf" side of this debate always refers to "balance" and "sustainability", while those in opposition to the establishment of this wolf subspecies decry the loss of elk and deer, as well as losses of cattle to old Canis Lupus. Naturally, the latter also argues that a new danger to humans exist with the introduction of this predator, and that I shall not quarrel with. Wolf attacks on humans have occurred with fatal results even recently in Canada, and it is just a matter of time before it does occur here.
The use of the terms "balance" and "sustainability" are certainly open to debate. What historic benchmark was used to establish a figure upon which a "sustainable" population should be based? None. What was the historic benchmark figure of native ungulates and what was the species ratio? Unknown. Are the newly established wolves the same subspecies that existed here? Unknown. Even if that data existed, which it surely does not, we have managed game herds to increase elk populations compared to deer, and since humans certainly are now a new predator in this mix, exactly where lies the "balance" and what is considered "sustainable".
You will not be offered a credible answer. There isn't one.
I hear the plaintiff howls from them almost every night - oft times from afar, but occasionally within a hundred yards of the house. I see these creatures with some regularity, and every time I am conflicted with emotions that range from great excitement to primordial unease. Sometimes these emotions are concurrent with each other, as awe at the spectacle is mixed with a tinge of unease and fear. After all, they have replaced the cougar at the top of the food chain here. They are now the top-tier predator. This I must respect.
1 of 4 Continued Below

Posted by OneCreek on March 26, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have never had the desire or need to kill a Mountain Lion, nor really, a Wolf. In my thirty-seven years of adult hunting and outdoor work, I have seen perhaps a dozen lions, treasuring each and every experience. In the past year, all that changed. "Need" overcame the emotional perspective, and the question is why?
During the last thirteen years, with the children raising sheep, goats and chickens as 4-H projects, nary a one did we lose to any predation. Not one. But the dynamics of a perceived "balance" changed the previous equation. Last January 4th, our youngest son, then 11 by but three days, ran excitedly into the house yelling that there was a lion in the goat pen. He claimed breathlessly that as he was about to toss hay over the 6' fence, the creature had been in the doorway to the barn on top of a goat.
I strapped on my boots and hurriedly rushed up the hill to the barn with a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot. To my later chagrin, upon seeing nothing, I presumed the cat had left. Chambering a round but convinced he was gone, I entered the barn and six feet away was a very upset lion. As he snarled, I fired. In a matter of a second, I aged about ten years and he aged no more. Why?
I called Fish and Game, as the kill was surely legal but equally unlicensed. Shortly after the call came the arrival, and the cat was removed. "Okay", I thought. "A once in a Blue Moon event. An old cat pressed for food, and it was just one of those desperate times bring desperate measures things..."
A week later, I was outside on the porch having morning coffee in the dark at about 5:30 a.m. Perhaps it was fifteen degrees or so, and the sky was ablaze with stars. Then I heard this screaming and cries guttural that went on for perhaps a minute or two, followed by silence. Normalcy had returned. After a few hours, I gunned up and strolled down through the snow and thickets of the riparian zone and found the cause of the morn's commotion. A dead cow elk and a mess of wolf tracks. Whatever. But I had never heard that sort of noise before, that terror frantically voiced emitted when you are being ripped apart as certain death sets in. I know it's natural - I just hadn't yet experienced it. Rifle shots are different.
Then this past September came upon us, and with it an even more unusual surprise. We had placed an older sheep staked out, eating grasses near the barn. We had put him out about 6:30 a.m. and about ten o'clock, went back up to check his water. It did not matter. The sheep had been killed and partially consumed. The neck had the telltale marks of a lion attack upon them.
Page 2 of 4 Continued Below

Posted by OneCreek on March 26, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The place is a perfect kill zone. Two creeks meet in an insignificant little meadow of maybe fifteen acres, but the mountains around those little creeks rise like ramparts. To set the trap is all too easy. The pack is all around the meadow, and after an elk enters it, it is doomed. The pack members at the bottom run the elk up the south-facing hill, where the rest of the pack lays in wait. As the elk struggles up the hill, the uphill members of the pack set upon it from above, and its fate is sealed.
I have not seen so much loss of elk here in such a compressed period in thirteen years of residing here. All of it was due to wolves. They are above me and below me. I live with it, and it is not a philosophical "abstract" or some grand ideal. It is what it is. "Brutal, nasty, and short", as the saying goes. Proponents claim that wolves kill only the “weak and sick”. This is not just pure fantasy, but a flat-out lie. The “Truth” of what wolves actually do can be seen by visiting www.saveourelk.com. It is the last website that “WildEarth Guardians” will ever want you to see. Ignorance on the part of the public only gives strength to the idealistic proponents, as they hypnotize by appealing to the romantic ideal rather than enlightening with the truth.
Seemingly forgotten is that the stated goal of this "reintroduction", or "establishment", if these wolves are even the correct former existing subspecies, is that the numbers desired were a total of 100 wolves and/or 10 packs. We currently have fifteen times the number of wolves and packs that would achieve the establishment goal the Federal Government set. The proponents of this action voiced no objection to the numbers set. Now, the tune has changed dramatically. More than enough is now not enough.
You can leisurely drive by a couple miles away on Highway 93 and not have a clue as to what just happened out your window. But inside your window, and inside the windows of those who reside in the towns and cities, the "argument emotional" rages on. The argument is political and legal in nature now, and as such leaves those who live directly with the circumstance fairly well silenced. They are quite marginalized on the wrong end of the numbers game. This grand debate is all about the search for a supposed "sustainability" and "balance", but there are factors in the equation that are opposites of each other, and will always remain so. It is a war between interest groups; a war to see which side can convince the grand courts of the government to coerce its will upon the other. The rest of us are merely spectators, I having a rather unique seat in this peculiar coliseum.
There is no correct solution to this, and there never will be. It is our nature. We've simply again accomplished something uniquely human; we have found something else to endlessly fight about.

Posted by OneCreek on March 26, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Page 3 of above posts
Licensed this time, I set about that evening to deal with this new problem. Right at sunset the lion returned, and at about fifty feet, shot him dead. This cat was not old at all, and weighed almost 170 pounds. Later skull measurements had him but 1/8th of an inch short from making the Boone and Crockett record book. This was a large, healthy lion that had attacked and killed livestock almost in our yard. Two lion attacks in nine months and none in the thirteen years before? What the he..........?
Soon thereafter I enjoined in conversation with an outfitter who hunts lions in my area, and he made note to me that they are only jumping about 1/3 to 1/2 the amount of lions they had just five years ago. Why? The lions are being run off their kills by the packs of wolves, was his appraisal. It is a belief that is likely true. It would appear that the wolves are slowly starving the lions out.
Such commentary becomes "evidence" that is always considered anecdotal, but it is important none-the-less. When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was attempting to ascertain whether or not to suggest listing both the Wolverine and Lynx as "Endangered Species", they interviewed trappers to detail their catches and any observations they had made regarding said species. Therefore, such commentary should not simply be dismissed out of hand. Besides, the writers and interest groups who wish for wolves to maintain protected status use guesstimates all the time to rationalize their arguments. How exactly, may I ask, does one accurately count Mountain Lions? You can't.
A Forest Service road runs up past the place for miles, and I frequent it often. A week ago Friday evening a cow elk and her days-old calf were killed by wolves about a half-mile up the road. I found them at about 8:30 a.m. Saturday, as a single Golden Eagle and a number of Ravens flew off the carcasses. Wolf tracks were everywhere. Wednesday morning brought another identical scene, but no calf. This past Saturday evening I had come down the mountain at about 8:00, and there was nothing left there to suggest anything had ever happened. Sunday morning I headed back up at about 9:30, and there was a completely consumed deer and another cow elk dead and virtually nothing but skeleton and hide at the same location, the two dead ungulates separated by about two hundred yards.
Upon seeing the elk remains, I glanced into the meadow downhill to the south, and spotted a wolf trotting into the thick brush along the creek. There's little doubt that its tracks were among the five different sets mixed about that dead elk. It was a beautiful animal, though in some ways I felt a hatred for it while simultaneously marveling at its magnificent splendor.
Page 3 of above posts

Posted by Oroboros on March 26, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Proponents claim that wolves kill only the “weak and sick”. This is not just pure fantasy, but a flat-out lie."

No one here said "only". More words being put into other's mouths.

It's a simple fact. The weak and sick run slower. They _tend_ to be the ones caught. I don't think anyone is ascribing benevolence on the part of the wolves in this act, just physics and biology.

And just the same, not every single hunter kill is a trophy bull either. In fact, I do know a bit about elk hunting and when an opportunity arises there may not be another one. But again, in general, opportunity tends to come in the form of a herd not a solitary elk, and when there's a herd the _average_ hunter is going to go for the biggest and best, and the gun isn't discriminating between the strongly healthy runners and the old weak ones.

Posted by Scott on March 26, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OneCreek,

GREAT postings. Darn long, but I read every word of it. Thanks for the information.

Hey RMN, how about publishing OneCreek's posting on your editorial page!

Scott

Posted by gcrez on March 26, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice writing OneCreek! Your first hand experience will never be matched with anything the "Wild Earth Guardians" can muster up. That's the problem here folks, these people have nothing better to do than to rally for things they have no clue about. They don't know what really goes on out there. They just read and see stories about the poor elk. I live on the Grand Lake side of the park, and I have numerous trustworthy sources that claim to have seen wolves already. They are here. I have heard them, but I haven't been fortunate enough to see one. The so-called wolf experts say the recent wolf signs (sightings, tracks) are a result of hybrid's being released. How is it so hard to believe that wolves could migrate here? I can drive to Laramie in about 2 hours. It really isn't that far of a stretch. I love how these groups are against hunting, yet they don't realize that the hunters fund all the research. I wonder how much money they donate toward the management of our wildlife? Until they start contributing, they shouldn't have any say about what happens to our resources.

Posted by buffsblg on March 26, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe two things: 1. We should have rational public debate about reintroducing wolves to Colorado and if that would benefit the Park and the state; 2. The right place to have that debate is not in Federal Court.

I can understand and even sympathize with those who go to Court frustrated by the refusal of this administration to comply with even the most clear environmental laws. Remember, the Fish and Wildlife Service recently had to rescind several endangered species decisions because they were made by a political appointee who deliberately overruled the department's own scientists. Those decisions were made to benefit drillers and grazers and in absolute defiance of the endangered species act. The only check on the abuse of the system has in most cases been the Courts.

All that said, for wolf reintroduction to work will require the buy in of the state and the people. Having a judge force it (which by the way will not happen) is simply the wrong way to go about all of this.

Posted by Brokebackcop on March 26, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I recieved this e-mail from a guy I know where they introduced wolves. This is what you have to look forward to people!!!
Part One:
God help you people. You have no idea what is to be unleashed if this actually happens. My wife, son, and I went up the road only a mile and a half yesterday. There were two more dead and mostly consumed cow elk and four more mule deer. That is a total of six elk and seven deer in under two weeks in a 1.5 mile stretch. These elk were not "sick and weak". One had recently birthed. Sick elk have spontaneous abortions. The rest showed no signs of stress (outside of being just a little bit dead) such as ribs evident against what remained of the hide, etc.. This is a crock of ----.

Wolves don't prey exclusively on weak and sick animals. They are "Apex" predators and kill anything they want, anytime they want.

They are not going to stay in the Park. What kind of idiocy is this? In 1995, they dumped 50 "Canadian Grey Wolves", not the native "Timber Wolf", thirty miles from here. Those fifty have reproduced their way to 1500 plus, and their range has expanded to over 200 miles in all directions. Say goodbye to your elk and deer herds, from the Front Range to the Utah border, and the monies that come with them. And folks, it's those monies that pay for management, not taxes.

One other minor detail. These God Damned lying SOB's argued both before and after establishment (not "reintroduction", as this subspecies is not native here) that "increased tourism" would result from said establishment. An Obvious lie! I've yet to meet a casual tourist who came here to "See the wolves", and hunters are not returning because of the crash in elk numbers. This is a critical part of the economy to remote places like this.

Posted by Brokebackcop on March 26, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Part Two:
The few hikers who walk by always ask us what the wolf activity is, with obvious consternation in their voices. Last September, a fellow in his late sixties hiked up and queried us about it. He was in great shape and had with him a 100 plus pound German Shepard, which is technically a liability, because the wolves will come in to kill a dog, rather than fear it. "Territory", you know.

I replied truthfully, and asked him if he had a gun. He replied that he indeed did, and that it was in his backpack. I told him to belt it up, because he wasn't going to have time to fumble with a zipper if things got ugly. It happens fast and with little or no warning. Successful predators don't alert you to their presence. You die.

After a seconds reflection, he removed it from the pack and put it on. He then commented that he wasn't wearing it because he "didn't want to offend anyone". I replied that "No one here gives a damn - just wear it." It has gotten to a point where damn near everyone, even women of slight stature, who you would never think would ever "pack" either openly or covertly, now wear handguns all the time. It sucks. It looks like a damn militia around these parts, just to take out the garbage!

If wolves are put into that park, they will have the same "protected status" that the wolf packs placed here were given (protection ends Friday here). You CANNOT shoot one to protect your dog. JAIL and FINE. You CANNOT shoot one to protect yourself unless an attack has begun. They will bring in "experts" who WILL disprove your claim. Federal Wildlife "Experts" have an agenda, and you are in their way. It is you against the Federal Government. Jail and Fine. If you have livestock but are not a commercial operation (such as us), you CANNOT shoot one and you will not be paid for your losses. Jail and Fine.

There is no "jury of your peers". You appear before an "Administrative Law Judge". It is "The Star Chamber" modern. You are flat-out doomed. This is insane. STOP IT!!! Go to saveourelk.com. The truth is there. The truth is right here in front of my eyes. It is out my backdoor, and not emanating from the lying lips of agenda-driven "advocates". STOP THE MADNESS!!!

Posted by Oroboros on March 26, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd invite those claiming that wolves don't generally prey on the sicker and weaker members of the herds to post some sort of evidence to substantiate your claims and rebut this study.

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?I...

"Using the carcasses of 192 large mammals, the scientists concluded that wolves preyed mostly on vulnerable elk and deer—the young, old, sick or injured."

Posted by OneCreek on March 26, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the argument posted by Oroboros immediately above this entry, rebuttal is easy.

The "Frank", where this "study" was conducted is a stones throw from where I live. The husband/wife team "studied" the wolves and "concluded" what you posted above. On what basis? These carcasses had no necropsies performed on them by qualified scientists, so they are simply guessing at the deceased age, health, etc. Necropsies occur in a lab setting, not "in the field". Additionally, when wolves and the carrion consumers that immediately set in (eagles, ravens, magpies, coyotes, insect) work over a carcass, the so-called "determinations" they argue are impossible to legitimately ascertain. They are also in direct contraposition to what is happening right out my door.

They go on to claim that some loss was due to "overbrowsing" when they admit the elk population was decreased from prior years. Lesser population numbers do not cause overbrowsing in the same habitat. That argument makes no sense at all.

Where may I ask, is the "Independent Peer Review" study to validate their assertions? It doesn't exist. Their study is agenda driven, period. "Scientific Studies" are invalid without identical studies by other non-ideological scientists that conclude identical results. Their "Study" is the same "Command Science" the Soviets practiced; it is Lysenko resurrected.

The introduced Canadian Grey Wolves are not a native species anywhere in the lower 48 states, and primarily reside in mid to northern Canada. They co-evolved with large herds of Caribou and large Moose as their core prey, not Elk and Deer. They are 75-100 pounds heavier that the Rocky Mountain Timber Wolf. This is an "experiment" with a new predator, not the reintroduction of the native Timber Wolf.

Posted by WayneHare on March 29, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gadzooks! I love reading these reader comments. It gives me an opportunity to see how many folks are around that don't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about, but talk anyway. O.K...we're all impressed with how smart you all are.

Posted by Timberlinearcher on April 3, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I was pro MANAGED wolf for a while. I realize that putting wolves here could help to reduce elk populations. but not to the extent of them getting overpopulated like they are now. reintroductions needs to come with management, and with all of the wolf huggers crying out "dont delist them!! they are still endangered!!" Endangered my ass!! management has gone to hell with them and now they are DECIMATING deer and elk populations.

If they are ever introduced, say goodbye to the elk of the state that welcomes out of state hunters with over the counter elk licenses. I have heard one good idea concerning wolves in RMNP and that is to introduce 4 sterile wolves to help with the elk. but if they just introduce packs, wolf huggers would be on that quicker than a fat kid on a cupcake and wolves wouldnt be delisted until all of the elk of CO are gone. Even with the proposed management practices of the CDOW (colorado division of wildlife). These sorts of decisions should be left to the wildlife biologists (which I am studying to be at this moment) that work for them, not the general public that knows nothing except that canis lupis may get hunted sometime.

Whenever a wildlife issue goes to the ballots, its all over for that issue and the best practice doesnt get done.

Keep em out of colorado