Comments about ‘Wolf advocates howl over $300k spending request’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 6 2013 5:30 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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 it?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

George
Bronx, NY

@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?

one old man
Ogden, UT

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.

Nebsy
Ephraim, UT

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.

Nebsy
Ephraim, UT

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.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

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 before.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

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 reliable sources.

George
Bronx, NY

@nebsey
Two 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 to lack?

Nebsy
Ephraim, UT

According to the poll; 87% of those surveyed support returning management of wolf populations to the states.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@Nebsy
"The poll?" And what exactly does "the poll" have to do with the question presented to mountain man? Care to try again?

Nebsy
Ephraim, UT

@ Tolstoy
The 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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments