Wolf advocates howl over $300k spending request

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Nebsy Ephraim, UT
    March 11, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 8, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    "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
    March 8, 2013 8:05 a.m.

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

  • George Bronx, NY
    March 7, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    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?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    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.

  • Nebsy Ephraim, UT
    March 7, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Nebsy Ephraim, UT
    March 7, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 7, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    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.

  • George Bronx, NY
    March 7, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    @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?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 7, 2013 5:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 6, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    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?

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    March 6, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    I need $300,000 for keeping the elephants away.


  • George Bronx, NY
    March 6, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 6, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    @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.

    March 6, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    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!

  • annewandering oakley, idaho
    March 6, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    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.

  • nota3333 los angeles, CA
    March 6, 2013 7:55 p.m.

    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.

  • annewandering oakley, idaho
    March 6, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    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?

  • nota3333 los angeles, CA
    March 6, 2013 7:44 p.m.

    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.

  • nota3333 los angeles, CA
    March 6, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    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 round.

  • nota3333 los angeles, CA
    March 6, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 6, 2013 7:09 p.m.

    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?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 6, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    Too many people around here were scared when their mommies read the Big Bad Woof to them. Grow up!

    March 6, 2013 6:17 p.m.

    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 ignorance!

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    March 6, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 6, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    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?

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    March 6, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    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 livestock.


  • annewandering oakley, idaho
    March 6, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    I second keeping them out. Better and easier to keep them out than to get them back out.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 6, 2013 5:43 p.m.

    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!

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    March 6, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    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.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    March 6, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    Keep them out.