@ TolstoyThe poll... not much really. I don't care whether
it's 1% or 99%. The constitution is law. I do assess that 87% of those
surveyed agree with the U.S. Constitution: that the right to manage wildlife
belongs to the states. NOT the federal government. And THAT has everything to
do with the question. If the residents of those states, their state
representatives and wildlife management officials believe that the wolf is
detrimental to the populations of large herbivores, then they have every RIGHT
(constitutionally) to manage wolves as they see fit. Federal management of
wildlife is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. The ESA goes against the U.S.
Constitution. By no means am I arguing that the ESA doesn't have a
place... but, it is (in my opinion) often an overreach of federal government.I am not afraid of wolves. I am afraid of non-residents forcing their
ideology on my state via federal wildlife law.
@Nebsy"The poll?" And what exactly does "the poll" have to
do with the question presented to mountain man? Care to try again?
According to the poll; 87% of those surveyed support returning management of
wolf populations to the states.
@nebseyTwo thing, one you have obviously never been to my state if you
think we have destroyed most of the natural habitat here. Two you may want to
save some of the "take care of you own state" for mountain man who is
also not from your state. Know that we have dispatched with your obvious
attempt at misdirection do you care to provide the evidence mountain man appears
Mountan Man: "We have lost over 70% of our elk to wolves according to
biologists here and the damage is still increasing and for what?"Like "one old man" I'm skeptical. A 70% loss of a charismatic and
moneymaking big game species in a state would have made national headlines, and
not just in the hunting press. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation would be out
in force making waves. I suspect your informant was referring to a particular
management unit or herd, not the entire state.A 2010 piece in Idaho
Reporter cites Idaho Department of Fish and Game data showing a 57% drop since
2006 in the Lolo Elk Management Zone in north central Idaho. That's a ways
shy of 70% and just one unit. A 2012 IDFG publication states, "Currently,
elk herds meet or exceed management objectives in 19 of 29 elk management zones,
and provide hunting opportunities ranging from trophy bulls to extra cow hunting
opportunities to meet objectives." That hardly sounds like the state is
facing cataclysmic declines in elk population. Can you cite some actual
published data to substantiate your claim? Hearsay is unreliable, even from
Clue Bay: "You can not use reintroduced as these wolces were not native to
this area."Wolves are native to Utah. From the gray wolf
species account on the Utah Conservation Data Center (Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources) website: "The gray wolf, Canis lupus, once inhabited much of the
Northern Hemisphere, including North America, Asia, and Europe. The species has
been driven from much of its former range by humans, but populations still exist
in some areas of Alaska, Canada, northern Mexico, the northern United States,
and Asia. The gray wolf was once common in Utah, but it was extirpated
(exterminated) from the state by early settlers."The UCDC has
GIS data on species occurrences available online. Unraveling the dbf file in
the GIS shapefile (TES_20121219.shp) shows 19 recorded gray wolf occurrences on
USGS quads spanning the state, mostly from the early 20th century. The primary
reference provided for most records is "Young, S. P., and E. A. Goldman.
1944. The wolves of North America. American Wildlife Institute."Feel free to use the term "re-introduced." They have been here
Nota, Brave Sir and George... please assert the rights that you hold within
YOUR state. If you would like to reintroduce wolves their... go for it. You
have all ready destroyed most of the habitat and wildlife that was once there.
And now, in all your wisdom, you want to afflict your desires on the few
remaining places where people live with the land....harvest from the land...
utilize the land to feed the masses of you. Fortunately for those masses, we
know how to do it. We know how to utilize the resources in a sustainable
manner. Please allow us continue to feed the world without the interference.
The 'BIG BAD WOLF' comment is ridiculous. I am not scared of wolves.
I am scared of the ignorant. I am scared of those who live in far off places
like LA, who have no knowledge/insight/perception of what wildlife truly is,
dictating what will happen in my back yard. That is my fear.For those who
wish to comment who do not reside in the state of Utah... please refer to the
Constitution of the United States of America, which clearly grants management of
wildlife to the states. When wolves migrate to Utah, they will not be
California's wolves... they will not be California's problem, nor New
York's. They will be Utah's problem.Utah lawmakers are within
the Constitution to assert the desires of Utah residents and taxpayers regarding
the management of wolves in this state.
MM -- sorry, but I find your claims very hard to believe. Especially since
spending fourteen days backpacking in the Coeur d'Alene last summer. Heard
wolves a few times, some fairly close by.But I also saw MANY very
nice looking elk, deer and smaller critters. MANY. Perhaps you just don't
know where to look. Elk are big and tan with white rump patches. The boy elk
have big things on their heads called "Antlers." They're kind of
hard to miss if you know how and where to spot them.Someone claimed
in another post here that they had watched wolves in Utah tearing sheep apart.
Hmmmmm. Very interesting. Depredation by domestic and feral dogs is a big
problem in some parts of Utah. But not wolves.Hallucinations can
seem to be very real, I guess.
@mountain man"So many wolf experts" this coming from a guy
who's only references are a bunch of his hunting buddies. I have asked
before do you have any credible scientific evidence to support your claims?
Best use of that $300k?Lobby for "reintroduction" of wolves
to California.First time a pack carries away some movie star's
chihuahua, the push to "reintroduce" would die.
So many wolf "experts" in California that have never seen a wolf in the
wild? That's like an entomologist who never observed an insect isn't
I need $300,000 for keeping the elephants away.Ridiculous.
So Utah is going to waist money chasing ghost passed on scare tactics and fake
claims? Can I get 300,000 to. Keep the bogeyman out of Utah? It is well worth it
after all I told mountain man so.
@Clue Bay"I wish all these wolve advocates would go camping with
their families in all these areas they demanded wolves are introduced (You can
not use reintroduced as these wolces were not native to this area)."I take my family camping in wolf country all the time - we haven't
been attacked yet. Neither have any of the other millions of people who have
done the same.Oh, and FYI, wolves ARE native to Utah.
Nota3333 - You obviously have lived in the urban jungle to long. The wolves do
not leave scraps for others to eat - they make scraps out of everything. I have
seen sheep herds decimated and not to eat, but to kill. I have friends in Sun
Valley that are terrorified to go out side as the wolves are killing elk in
their back yards. Wolves are a killing machine and they enjoy it. You want the
luxury of Los Angeles and think a weekend get away will be wonderful to see a
pack of wolves running around. It is going to take a pack to kill people before
we really see how serious is this risk. You get the convenience of a 1,000 miles
between the pack and you, while we live in the area we have settled and payed to
develop and now have wolves expanding way beyond the original scope of the plan.
If you love wolves so much - get a pack in the Hollywood Hills and see how
quickly they decimate everything. The Mexican wolve was also native to
California and I do not see you pushing for wolves there!
nota3333, Theoretical is always so much cleaner and manageable from LA. You see
a beautiful picture of a wolf and fall in love. Wolves in the wild are not
easily manageable pets who know their job and do it. They are in truth wild,
intelligent, cunning, hungry and destructive. Yes they do leave bits and pieces
of bodies behind them. Mangled, no longer breathing, toys even. What you
need to remember is that people are animals too. We have our territories and
reasons to protect those territories and our food supplies. We are part of the
environment and have a right to exist. I would much rather the native cougars
etc balance out what we need balancing. Why should we bring in uncontrollable
'hit men'. Since the wolves have come in we have seen more
cougars in inhabited areas than before. I wonder why that might be? Are they
being pushed out of their natural habitat? Ican not see one single valid
reason to bring in the 'beautiful' wolf. If you want them then I am
sure the fish and game can bring them down to you.
For what? well, to feed the wolves and other wild animals. As I explained a
little earlier, when wolves kill deer and elk, their leftover scraps usually get
eaten by animals such as coyotes, bears, birds, cougars, etc. It's been
documented how elk and deer killed by wolves provides beneficial to other
wildlife species. No more elk farm for hunters. Now that the wolves are back,
elk and deer will be managed by the wolves and other predators such as the
cougar and bear year round.
nota3333, how about if PEOPLE 'harvest' the game? We can
'harvest' and eat and do fine all by ourselves. On top of that ability
we generally have the ability to not 'harvest' cows, sheep, dogs,
cats, etc while we are at it. I admit to a prejudice here. Animals are not
crops like grain. When grain is eaten by mice etc we do not applaud the wildlife
harvesting for us. We do not need wolves to come in and do us any services. It
is odd that you are saying that it is good, even admirable, for wolves to do
this yet I distinctly remember the wolf lobby saying wolves only eat mice and
small rodents. I laughed at this. Now am I to believe you have all changed that
line of propaganda now?
The wolves are keeping the elk populations in check in Idaho. There is nothing
wrong with this as the wolves have gotta eat. There are still elk left in Idaho,
but the elk are behaving differently now that their top apex predator, the wolf
is back. Elk move around a lot more now that the wolves are back.
The wolves have been proven to be beneficial towards other wildlife. Wolves
harvest elk, deer, and moose year round and sometimes they leave scraps behind.
Coyotes, cougars, birds, bears, etc all take advantage of the leftover scraps
that the wolves leave. Wolves will continue to harvest deer, elk, and moose year
Wolves are native to Utah. Wolves have done an amazing job keeping the elk and
deer populations in check in Idaho and Montana. The wolves are back and will
continue harvesting the elk, deer, and moose populations year round. I have mo
doubt that wolves will be back in Utah to keep the elk population in check over
there. Elk, deer, moose, etc must be managed and there is no better wildlife
manager than the wolves. Elk, deer, moose, etc will continue be to harvested by
the wolves year round in Idaho, Montana, etc.
Old Man: The regional wildlife biologist for N. Idaho told several people,
including myself, that information personally! Of course it was very politically
incorrect for him to say it. Anyone, like myself, who has spend any time in the
mountains knows what he said was absolutely true. Had wolves howling around my
tent many times during my multiple over night hiking, backpacking trips and I
never see any elk anymore. The mountains are nearly empty of elk! And for what?
Too many people around here were scared when their mommies read the Big Bad Woof
to them. Grow up!
I wish all these wolve advocates would go camping with their families in all
these areas they demanded wolves are introduced (You can not use reintroduced as
these wolces were not native to this area). Lets see how they like to put their
families at risk. I am sick and tired of peoples from populated areas that have
no wildlife or native game telling us how we need to manage our lands! It is
If there is no issue, and no agenda for getting wolves into Utah, then why is
Mr. Robinson up in arms about it? Me thinks he doth protest to much.
MM -- where do you get that supposed 70% loss of elk number. Show us some
documentation.Reports from those states indicate there may be a 20%
drop, but they also attribute much of that reduction to causes other than
wolves.Do you know what the word TRUTH means?
Keep them out at whatever cost. Big mistake to "reintroduce" a
non-native THRIVING species throughout Wyoming, Idaho and Montana to begin with.
I will be trying to do my part to help reduce their impact in a couple of those
states - in order to help to preserve the impacted big game herds and
I second keeping them out. Better and easier to keep them out than to get them
Look no farther than the experiences of big game biologists in Idaho, Wyoming
and Montana to learn what wolves will do to Utah's wildlife. We have lost
over 70% of our elk to wolves according to biologists here and the damage is
still increasing and for what? We are sick and tired of feeding the federal
government's wolves! Advice to you folks in Utah; do what ever it takes to
keep wolves out of your state or you will regret it!
Make them a preditor anywhere out side the buffer zone of Yellowstone. Just like
WYOMING is doing. The wolves will be held in check. The fear of man will remain
in these killers.
Keep them out.