God gave us stuff to kill?

So I was getting the mail this afternoon, at my dad's house, and saw one of his hunting magazines, Eastman's Hunting Journal. Whenever I see these magazines, I do something that can be described as something between an eye roll and a cringe. I was just never wired to be able to glorify killing things for fun or "for sport."
Not long ago, I found my childhood journal. I hadn't written in it much, but I decided to go through it, just to reminisce. (I think I found it when my mom died, and I wanted to see if there was anything about her I could use for my funeral talk.) I found an envelope in there that contained 3 letters I got way back when I was just thirteen years old. One letter was from my mom, one from my dad, and one from myself. They were written for me to take along and open while I was on a spiritual wilderness outing with other youth from my church. The plan was to fast for the first day and then go out in the trees, by ourselves, and pray and try to commune with God. And at that time, we were to open the letters and read them. To keep this short, I'll just say that my letter to myself was to remind myself of some things I wanted to ask God. It surprised me, pleasantly I guess, that at 13, I had the consciousness to ask God if hunting was wrong. I suppose I was nervous, knowing I'd be old enough to hunt deer and elk with my dad the following year at age 14. (So YOUNG to be out there carrying and shooting a high-powered rifle, especially with so many other hunters in the same mountains.)
Well, I guess it took me about 4 more years to fully understand God's answer to my question. I hunted and killed a tiny little 2-point mule deer my first year, age 14. I remember feeling the adrenaline while aiming and pulling the trigger; then again while walking up on my kill. I was feeling happy, knowing I had made my dad proud of my shooting ability (Open sights, no scope, from 150 yds). At the same time, there was this unavoidable feeling of doubt, staring at this animal whose life I'd taken. But what was done was done. I hunted after that, but didn't kill again until I was 17. My dad had gotten me a permit to shoot a pronghorn in Southern Utah. We drove down really early in the morning. I was driving my own car so I could head home in time to work later that day. On the way down, still dark out, I hit a deer with my car. I radioed my dad to tell him the bad news. He came back to put the deer out of its misery. (I guess I couldn't?) We mashed the folded hood down so I could see and kept on south. We hadn't been down there long, (Parker Mountain, I believe) when we saw some pronghorn. I got out with my rifle, sneaked along the ground and got a shot off. I can't remember for sure but, I think I hid it in the guts on the first shot, so I shot again to kill it. When I walked up on it, I wasn't really excited, other than my curiosity of what a pronghorn looks like up close being satisfied. I began to gut it out, which I really didn't know how to do, but my dad wanted me to learn that way. I accidentally cut into its bladder (a bad mistake) and the stench was awful. Pronghorn aren't that tasty; most people don't even eat the meat; at least not much of it. Finally, standing there, looking down at this beautiful animal, something changed inside of me for good. I didn't understand it all right then but, a while later, realized I was not a sport hunter. And as far as I understand my god, I can only believe that hunting, for ANY reason other than to feed yourself and others, is wrong. I haven't completely sworn hunting off; I've considered harvesting an elk because I really like the meat and it's better for us than feed-lot cattle. But I will NEVER hunt an animal because I want to see its head on my wall, its rug on my floor, or my picture with it in a magazine.
Now, back to the magazine I found in the mail today. I didn't open it; I know what it says inside; I've heard it all and read it all before, being an advocate for wolves. A big headline on the cover read: "Hunting God's Country for Wolves." To me, this is one of the most ironic phrases I can think of. This headline assumes that the writer and the reader believe in God. And for sure, they're speaking of the Judeo-Christian God, Eloheim, Heavenly Father, Jesus the Christ, etc...And I can't wrap my mind around the concept of believing in God, believing you're toting a gun around God's country, and somehow, God is eh-OK with you killing wolves (God's creation) for sport and fun.
I know that I don't know everything, or even very much. But I know irony when I read it.

Kill so they can kill some more...

Let me preface this entry with this: Hunting for your subsistence is honorable; killing for sport is another thing altogether. I will repeatedly use the term "hunter" in this entry; I am directing the majority of my claims toward the sport/trophy hunters, as I believe they are the biggest enemy of the wolf and ecology in general.

All of you know by now my affinity for nature, for wildlife, and especially for wolves. For the past 6 months, there has been more and more talk about the wolf issue here in the West. As you can imagine by reading my other wolf-related entries, this issue gets people heated. Why do people--specifically hunters--hate wolves so much? Why do groups like Safari International, Big Game Forever, Cabela's, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and others lobby so hard to get rid of the wolves? There is a pretty simple answer.

If you mention wolves around the vast majority of hunting enthusiasts, your likely to get an earful. They love regurgitating the talking points they've gotten from "sportsmen" shows, magazines, stores, and other hunters. Pick up nearly any hunting magazine around here and you'll find an article or four about how wolf reintroduction has "decimated" the ungulate populations. Now, even though the word decimate literally means to take one out of every ten, the hunter will go on and on about how there are NO elk left; they'll ramble about how they've hunted an area for 20 years and now there are NO elk or deer anywhere. The truth about this claim of decimation is true and it isn't. Certainly, areas where many hundreds or thousands of elk once roamed out of check, are now found to be with fewer elk, but this doesn't mean there are NO elk; it usually means the elk have scattered; moved on to other areas with fewer predators. What hunters won't mention is the fact that, in places like MT, WY and ID, after 15 years of wolves, elk numbers are still exceeding state objectives. If you want to know why this is a very good thing, for the wolves, the land, and the elk, go back to my earlier wolf blogs where I go into more depth on that. To put it simply,
wolves = fewer, more scattered ungulates = stronger, more alert, genetically superior elk = less grazing = more intact ecosystems.

So, why wouldn't hunters want all of that; at least the part about genetically superior elk and more intact ecosystems? Well, hunters have lots of competition. As the hunter prizes that trophy elk, so does Mr. Bear, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Other Hunter and good old Mother Nature. And, this just makes a hunter uneasy about his chances. To Mr. Hunter, superior elk and good ecosystems are all fine and good, as long as he's just about guaranteed to get to shoot one of those superior elk on a "hunt" that is essentially a canned hunt, meaning every odd is in his favor.

Guaranteed? Oh yes. And he'll talk about this issue, as there is some predestined entitlement to kill an elk and hang it on his wall. And he'll talk about how he and his buddies have laid some sort of claim to the elk in the mountains and, thus, should have more to say about it than anyone else. Entitlement? Really? A guarantee? Hmm....I don't remember that part of the Constitution. I don't remember reading or hearing about this guarantee, ever. I do believe that God gave man the beasts of the field to sustain himself. However, there was never a guarantee, or a right, or a claim of ownership over the elk. No, I believe those are God's elk/Nature's elk. We have no more claim on them than does the rest of the biosphere.

About that imagined claim of more right to influence wildlife policies, the hunters will tell you about how more of the money they spend on hunting tags, etc...goes into habitat restoration and game management programs. As far as I understand it, they are correct, and that their money is spent on habitat preservation, restoration, etc...is commendable, by itself. But then, in order to fully respect that, one ought to ask why would hunters spend money on habitat and lobbying the way they do. Do they just love the elk and deer? Are they simply fascinated by the ungulates and never want to see them vanish? Do they believe elk and deer were meant to roam the mountains around us? (Wouldn't that also mean ALL native animals should roam our mountains?) Well, perhaps; it might be a small factor. But what if nothing was in it for the hunter? What if there was no hunting allowed? What if there was no guarantee? Would they still spend their money on habitat preservation and making sure the elk and deer populations thrived? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say NO, they would not. They've shown that what they ultimately want, that great motivating force behind their good deeds, is that they want to kill those elk and deer. They pay their dues so they can kill things. Many of them don't care what; put a living, breathing mammal in front of them and they'll kill it and then pose for a photo with it and then maybe get the thing stuffed and put on the wall, thus ensuring the praise of their friends for years to come.
(By the way, in terms of pure dollars related to wildlife, for every $1 spent by hunters/fishers in Utah, $2 is spent by people just hoping to SEE wildlife.)

Maybe it's just me but, "to hunt" implies having to look around, to scout, to stalk, and maybe to work really hard IN HOPES of finding what you're looking for. If you hunt something, you obviously don't know if that thing is there; you are simply looking for it; no guarantee. Today's "hunting" philosophy: 4WD truck, 4WD 4 wheeler with a winch, camoflauge everything, trail cameras, high powered rifle, high powered scope, paid guides, private property, spending WAY more money for that guarantee than what you'd spend on meat at the store, etc...The truck will maybe get you close enough for a shot; the 4wheeler will get you even closer and will carry out your kill for you; the high-powered rifle will put you "within range" at over a mile away; the high-powered scope will get you even closer; you'll quench that blood lust before you even squeeze the trigger; the guides will take you right to the place where they've been watching the same trophy animal, every day, for months; the trail cam will do your hunting for you so you won't have to move a muscle; all of that "hunting" will assure you that you'll win the pissing contest between all the other hunters on a given year. By the same logic behind the anti-wolf lobby, we ought to kill all bears, kill all wolves, kill all trees--easier to see the elk, make it illegal for any hunter's path to go in an uphill direction; much easier to walk downhill. No, let's take that even further; it should be illegal, come hunting season, for any elk to remain hidden up in the mountains; by law they should be forced out of the hills and within 10 feet of all major valley roads. No, that's not right; it ought to be the law that once an animal has been chosen by the hunter, it must jump into the back of the hunter's truck where it would then be shot dead. Wait, no; only shot to maim itself, so it could go ahead and gut and skin itself on the way to the taxidermist, where it could then finally die. Trophy hunters are practically hunting on farms anyway; everything is basically a canned hunt these days. They don't want fair chase; they don't want it to be difficult; they want it to be as easy as possible to bag an elk with a bigger rack than the one over at the neighbor's house. See where I'm heading with this yet? (By the way, the funny scenarios I've  just painted are very nearly reality in some places like Texas and Africa).

To a wolf, hunting means hunting. They know there's no guarantee of a kill. The only guarantee they have is that, if they don't eat, they won't survive. The average wolf is about 95lbs. They don't have guns, they don't have scopes, they don't have trucks nor 4 wheelers. They have 4 legs on which they must run and beat their prey. They have to out wit an elk to win. They fail miserably on the majority of hunting attempts. But their survival depends on them succeeding some of the time. To bump their chances at all, they generally go after the young or the very old, the sick and the weak, leaving the strongest animals--those with the best health and genetics--to survive and pass on their traits. The way wolves hunt and survive will benefit elk populations, habitat, and vast ecosystems leaps and bounds more than will the high paying, guarantee-seeking hunter.

Why do the hunters want to get rid of the wolves? It's not because they simply love the elk and deer and moose. It's their love of killing the elk, deer, and moose that drives them. Trophy hunters kill wolves so they can kill some more.

To a wolf, hunting means food. They know there's no guarantee of a kill. The only guarantee they have is that, if they don't eat, they won't survive.

In the spirit of most of my hunting friends being from Utah:

*“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”

--Pres. Joseph F. Smith--

*

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ‘sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)
“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)
“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.”  (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

*“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”
--Joseph F. Smith--

The Wolf Issue; Volume IV

I've thought for years about the reasons man fears the wolf. I think there are numerous reasons, not the least of which is misunderstanding. From the time humans are youngsters, they're taught that wolves are to be feared. There are countless legends about werewolves, a monster which is a man-wolf hybrid. Little Red Riding-Hood had a bad experience with a wolf, dressed as her grandmother. And the Three Little Pigs were afraid that their houses would be blown down by the Big Bad Wolf. I cannot recall a book or nursery rhyme about a good wolf. Many books, pictures, and movies portray wolves as scary, bloody creatures, with huge fangs and an appetite for babies. An interesting research topic is the number of sharks killed shortly after the Jaws movies were released on the big screen. And such was the wolves' fates, nearly to the point of their extinction, until the 70s when attitudes finally began to change.

I think another, more obscure psychological reason for hating or fearing wolves, is that wolves are so similar to men. Man has made the mistake, time and time again in history, of killing that which he has not understood, or those by whom he has felt threatened. And wolves were no exception. How are people and wolves alike? Well, lets start with the obvious; they are social, living in family units, called packs. Humans seem to get joy, happiness, or fulfillment from their families and friends. A wolf's very survival depends on his relationship and bond with the pack. People get all giddy and full of joy when a new baby is born into their family. And the birth of new pups is the most exciting time of the year for a pack of wolves. As I have stated previously, only the alpha male and female reproduce, but the new pups belong to the entire pack. Each member from the alphas to the omegas, has new joys and new responsibilities with the babies. The adult wolves all take part in feeding, baby-sitting, teaching, and playing with the pups. And before the pups are born, there is the job of caring for the pregnant female. At some point, she becomes unable to go out and hunt, but still has to eat. It has been witnessed many times that the other pack members will bring food to the mother in her den. The pack truly works like a family, everyone looking out for everyone. Again, their survival depends on it. (Sound a lot like your family?) By the way, that member to member care and loyalty doesn't stop at the alpha female. It's been witnessed of wolves in captivity when a wolf becomes old, sick, or injured, that other healthy wolves will bring food to that wolf. At any rate, it doesn't take long to see just how alike wolves and humans are. It's unfortunate that this fact has been cause for fear, rather than respect and understanding.

The following is an excerpt from the research of L. David Mech, probably the most well-known wolf biologist in the U.S:

Very few mammals have symbiotic relationships with other creatures. One
of the few exceptions is the *wolf*:

"The *wolf* seems to have few relationships with other animals that
could be termed purely social, though he apparently takes pleasure in
the company of ravens. The *raven*, with a range almost as extensive as
the wolf's, one that even includes the tundra, commonly follows hunting
wolves to feed on the remains of a kill." (Barry Lopez, Of Wolves And
Men, p. 67)

The *raven* is sometimes known as "*wolf*-bird," and some zoologists
speculate that its *relationship* with wolves may be assisted by their
psychological make-up:

"It appears that the *wolf* and the *raven* have reached an adjustment
in their relationships such that each creature is rewarded in some way
by the presence of the other and that each is fully aware of the other's
capabilities. Both species are extremely social, so they must possess
the psychological mechanisms necessary for forming social attachments.
Perhaps in some way individuals of each species have included members of
the other in their social group and have formed bonds with them." (David
Mech, The *Wolf*: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species)

The relationship between wolves and ravens is so interesting to me. Sort of a, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" thing.

Well, this was a short entry. Probably a relief to most of you. I think this may be the final entry on this topic, unless I decide to post updates on wolf numbers and other stats, such as numbers of killed wolves or pack and pup numbers from year to year. Unless any of you have specific questions that I haven't yet addressed.

Thanks for your interest in one of my greatest passions.

The Wolf Issue, Part III

OK, I know this is sort of late. I've been preoccupied with other things and trying to compile my thoughts on this issue so that maybe you'd all get something out of it. I said last time that I'd talk about the positives of having wolves back in the wild. So, along with other things, let's talk about that.

Now, as I've already discussed, hunters are concerned about having wolves back in the wild; about having a predator to compete with. Some of you may have listened to hunters go on and on about how the wolves have or will deplete the elk herds, which wouldn't be right. People talk about how the elk numbers in Yellowstone have dropped significantly since the early 90s, before wolf reintroduction. That is actually true. Elk numbers have dropped by as much as half in certain parts of the park. But this isn't surprising. The elk went more than 60 years without a predator, which made them very comfortable; almost tame. During those 60 + years, the elk numbers actually got out of hand. There were too many elk. There was overgrazing in many areas, which leads to other problems. Elk would eat and trample the plants and grasses which lined stream/river banks, which, in turn led to erosion. Waterways became wider and took new turns. Native plants in those areas nearly went extinct. Where the water ran slow enough, beavers used to build dams and lodges. Once enough erosion occurred and changed the flow patters, beavers eventually became non-existent where before they had thrived. One of the most detrimental things was disease. You see, if the elk numbers become too great, and there's no reason for herds to move or break up into smaller herds, disease becomes rampant, being passed on to the young calves, over and over. For many reasons, it became obvious that something was missing in Yellowstone. The West needed its wolves.

Wolves generally cull the elk populations, by taking out the weak, the sick, or the old. (That's the general pattern--I realize it's not the case 100% of the time.) So, with the wolves in the picture, Yellowstone's elk are healthier. The presence of a supreme predator has caused the elk to change their behavior. No longer do they stay in one place, over populating and over-grazing. The elk now move around. They are much more alert. Native plants are making a comeback along the streams and rivers. Erosion has ceased being the major problem it was. Beavers are back. Fox numbers are up. And the great bio-community is much closer to equilibrium, that balance which is characteristic of a healthy eco-system.

The elk are not gone. They are just more aware of predators, including humans. They don't hang out off the sides of the roads as much. Now the hunters will just have to step their game up and actually hunt, in order to kill. Don't believe me? According to the USFWS, the elk populations of EACH of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana are a minimum of 14% ABOVE state objectives. So, have wolves decimated elk populations? The simple, irrefutable answer is no.

I realize I've not yet talked much about the social behavior of wolves, especially pack dynamics. That will come in the 4th installment. I'll try to get it up within a week's time.

Here are some websites though, in case you are becoming more and more interested in this topic.

http://fws.gov/mountain-prarie/species/mammals/wolf/

http://westernwolves.org

**The photo above is actually a coyote track, which is half the size of a wolf track, but extremely similar otherwise. It's all I had. And, although wolves and coyotes are closely related, by no means are they the same.

The Wolf Issue, Part II

So, I've now introduced you to the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone. I think I want to talk a bit about wolves, their biology, their behavior, and, especially, their social behavior. I want to give you some bits of information, and let you judge, for yourself, whether or not wolves should have a place on the land.

Aldo Leopold did many things during his lifetime but was more notable known as a naturalist/conservationist. (He wasn't always; Do a bit of research and find out what changed his life and his attitude). But I wanted to throw a couple of his quotes in here, quotes with which I think you might agree.

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." -Aldo Leopold

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." -Aldo Leopold

Now, here are two questions I'd like you to ask yourself and see if you can answer at this point in your life: 1) Are wolves, as a part of nature, helping preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community (the community of all life in the Northern Rockies Recovery Area)? 2) Would allowing or supporting ranchers and hunters to kill off the wolf population in the biotic community, in which they live, help to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty?

What do we know about wolves and this recovery program?
*Since 1996, the wolf numbers have gone up every year, except this year, when it went down. (So, we began with 66; we now have about 1600).
*In 2008, livestock predation cases numbered 523 for all of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. About 245 wolves were LEGALLY killed in those states. (These are the reported numbers. It's expected that there are more killed illegally, which aren't reported).
*The Federal Government, in conjunction with the original reintroduction agreement, and along with other non-profit organizations, compensates ranchers for livestock lost to wolf predation.

So there are conflicts, between wolves and people who don't like wolves, or who do not want them around. That was pretty much a known going into the program. But there have always been efforts to lessen these conflicts, through lethal and non-lethal means. The point is, while there will always be some conflict, we can deal with it, and we can try and make it as fair as possible to all sides. While I want the rancher to be protected as he makes his living, I want tolerance and patience for the existence of wolves.

OK, I'm getting a little fuzzy with where to go from here. (I have a tendency to get off on tangents, regardless of the subject).

Why do ranchers hate wolves? Because wolves eat their livestock. That's the simple answer to it. The complex answer is that they're afraid that wolves will eat all their livestock, even if they've not had any wolf problems yet. And that would be bad for their business. I realize ranching is hard work. I realize that squeezing a buck out of all that work is really hard. But I also think there can be middle ground. I donate to a charity every year that pays into the compensation fund. That's right Mr. Rancher; I want to protect you too. But you have to take some responsibility. You have to assume some risk; That's just part of owning a business. Also, if you summer your animals up in the mountains or on "Free range," you've definitely got to assume some risk. (That's when most predation occurs). You can do things to protect your herds/flocks. Use guard dogs. This is extremely effective. Ride through your herds as often as possible to portray a human presence. (Wolves will avoid humans at almost all costs). OK, here's one of the most innovative things I've heard, but it was done in Europe, not here. Because wolves are fiercely territorial, and are usually pretty staunch about not crossing another pack's boundaries, a sheep rancher put a few loud speakers around his property and played recordings of a pack of wolves' defensive howls, several times a day. It worked like a charm. Zero wolf run-ins. I realize this isn't going to feasible in every case. But put your cowboy hats together. Surely you can come up with something.

Hunters. Oh the hunters. They should call most of you opportunistic killers of lazy convenience. Why do the hunters hate wolves? (Not all hunters do, I realize.) Because wolves are predators and hunters don't like competing with natural predators for game. Hunters like elk. Wolves like elk. The problem for hunters is that a pack of wolves is the supreme killing machine, and wolves don't have to wait until hunting season, or to see if they "drew a tag." I would dare say, and I'm not very naive on the subject, that MOST hunters do their hunting these days, primarily for a nice trophy to hang on a wall, with which to impress themselves and their peers. The meat is secondary, if used and eaten at all. (How about those trophy hunters going on "Safari" in Africa? Talk about a canned hunt. And they don't get to bring the meat home. What a blood-letting waste.) Wolves kill because they have to. If they don't they die. Face it Mr. Hunter; if a 90lb. wild dog can bring an elk down, it deserves that meal. And driving on the dirt roads in your huge truck or on your ATV, sporting your expensive gear, not the least of which is your high-powered rifle and scope, which you'll use to make that 500 yard shot, IS NOT HUNTING. How do I know? Because I grew up hunting. Anyway, while I can get behind the ranchers a bit, I just cannot conjure up anything sympathy for your plight. Sorry.

I think the hostility toward wolves is rooted in the traditions of hunting and ranching in the West. But I also think a lack of understanding and education is a big factor as well. Most of these anti-wolf people have never seen a wolf in the wild. Many of them cannot tell the difference between wolves and coyotes. Really, I think education about wolves and wolf biology would go a long way in quelling the madness. You many want to pick up another book, or visit some good websites, especially if the last pieces of literature you read were "Little Red Riding Hood," or "The Three Little Pigs."

Hunters will argue that their side should trump mine because of all the money they spend on licenses, permits, tags, and such, some of which ends up in conservation efforts. I think that's great. I too spend money on conservation efforts. I think it's a worthy cause. I'm glad you like to hunt. I just wish more of you did it for meat only. (I think you'd be a little less competitive and angry if you weren't so preoccupied with getting a bigger trophy than your buddies.) I'll add this as well: In Utah, according to the USFWS Survey, for every $1 spent on hunting and fishing, $2 are spent on wildlife watching. So, maybe my side trumps yours? No, remember I believe that we can reach middle ground and have everyone win in some way.

OK. I'll end there. There will be a Part III very soon, which will talk about all of the positives of having wolves back in the Wild West.

***Oh yeah, why did I post a picture of my two dogs? I'll touch more on that next time but, it's because our domesticated pet dogs are the same species as wolves. That's right, if it weren't for wolves, the rancher wouldn't have his heelers, the hunter wouldn't have his hounds, and Paris Hilton wouldn't have her tea cup poodle accessories. OH BROTHER!!!

The wolf issue, through my eyes...

OK, this may be lengthy, as I have plenty to say about this issue and am horrible, sometimes, at compiling my thoughts in an orderly, coherent fashion. I have been passionate about canis lupus (the gray wolf) for about 10 years. In college, whenever it was allowed, I would write my papers on wolves. I really don't know where my interest originated, but I have become more and more involved in this issue; especially that of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park, and in the Northern Rockies. Anyhow, if you do much looking around, you'll find out that this is a pretty hot-button, contentious issue in the West. The following entry is what I think about the whole thing.

The last known wolf in the western U.S. was shot and killed in about 1930. Where wolves once roamed free, they were now gone. This was not coincidence. It was not simply the wolves' fate. It was done, according to orders by the U.S. government. You see, by this time, there were many sheep and cattle ranches, spread across the land. And, as often, or rare, as it happened, the fact was that wolves were killing sheep and cattle. Why? Well, I have a few ideas. Let's back up a bit. Before the West was settled by these ranchers, wolves had food in plentiful supply: deer, elk, moose, and bison. (Also a lot of mice and squirrels during the summers). Well, bison in particular would feed a wolf pack very well. But bison were nearly killed to extinction as well, in part to starve out the American Indian, and, to make room on the praries for great herds of cattle. Rid the wolves of bison herds and the wolves move onto the next best thing: stupid cows. I like to bring this up to wolf hating ranchers because, it's my opinion that the ranchers sort of perpetuated the problem. To solve the problem back then, the powerful and wealthy ranchers coaxed the government to get rid of the big, bad wolves. And it was done by any means necessary back then; trapping, shooting, poisoning, drowning (pups), etc...

Well, jump ahead to the 70s. People, across the country, began to think differently about wildlife, even predators, which included wolves. Thank God for the hippies. In 1973 the Endangered Species Act was passed. The wolves were soon on it, and the workings of bringing these incredible animals back had begun. It took 20 years or so to make enough progress with changing public opinion, researching environmental impact, and convincing the government that Yellowstone needed wolves in its eco-system. (Wolves actually roamed the entire country at one time, especially the mountainous land from Alaska and Canada, down to Mexico.) In 1996, the first wolves were brought from Canada, mainly British Columbia, to Yellowstone National Park. The reintroduction of wolves into their once native territory was happening.

Now for some wolf biology. Wolves have something in them, much like a homing device. Take them to Yellowstone and drop them off, they'll find their way back to Canada in a matter of days. They travel, even within their own territories, an average of 25 miles daily. They do this with ease, being natural-born athletes, with very strong lungs, and long legs. Because of these things, when the wolves were transported to Yellowstone, they were placed with their families, in acre-sized holding pens, and kept there for 10 weeks. There were 3 pens total, placed in 3 different areas of the park. They were called acclimation pens. And they were successful; After 10 weeks, the wolves had forgotten about Canada and now claimed these areas as home. A total of 66 wolves were brought into the park. Just over 12 years later, there are an estimated 1500-1600 wolves within the Northern Rockies Recovery area, which includes parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and a small chunk of Northern Utah. The recovery has been successful thus far.

When the government agreed to this project, the plan was to get a certain number of packs established, and then to turn the management over to the affected states. A little over a year ago, the Bush Administration delisted wolves from the Federal Endangered Species list. Quickly, conservation groups sued the feds to relist wolves, arguing that all of the objectives of the project had not been met. A judge ruled and wolves were relisted. Just before Bush left office, he delisted wolves again, a decision which was upheld about a week ago by our current Secretary of the Interior. However, the fight will go on and, I'm sure, the wolves will be re-relisted soon. The biggest problem with taking federal protections away now is that one really important thing hasn't happened enough. Because the packs have moved around, and their boundaries are now separated by highways, housing developments, urban sprawl, etc...the gene pools are not mixing. But, I'm not sure how that will ever happen now. It's not like those developments and highways are going away. In reality, there will be those who will never want wolves delisted. Biologists, on the other hand, want the states to manage the wolves. This would be more likely if Wyoming were to change their position and their managment plan, which, currently, is to list wolves as vermin, where they can be shot on site at any time, for any reason, in 90% of the state. Not going to happen Wyoming. Well, that's how the reintroduction program has gone thus far.

I think I'm going to present this stuff in a few parts. It's just getting to long and no one likes to read long post. So, I'll do it in a few shorter entries. But if you read this, and you have any comments or questions, please leave them and it will spark a better discussion and more thoughts in my mind for the coming entries.

P.S. That photo is from a book I own, called "The Wolves of Yellowstone." That is "Male #10,"--one of the original 66. His genes are everywhere in the Northern Rockies recovery area now. Incidentally, none of the 66 are still alive.