ForumGarden

Judge restores protection for Rockies wolves

By MATTHEW BROWN

The Associated Press

Saturday, July 19, 2008; 12:36 AM













BILLINGS, Mont. -- A federal judge has restored endangered species protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, derailing plans by three states to hold public wolf hunts this fall.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula granted a preliminary injunction late Friday restoring the protections for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Molloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent.

The region has an estimated 2,000 gray wolves. They were removed from the endangered species list in March, following a decade-long restoration effort.

Environmentalists sued to overturn the decision, arguing wolf numbers would plummet if hunting were allowed. They sought the injunction in the hopes of stopping the hunts and allowing the wolf population to continue expanding.

"There were fall hunts scheduled that would call for perhaps as many as 500 wolves to be killed. We're delighted those wolves will be saved," said attorney Doug Honnold with Earthjustice, who had argued the case before Molloy on behalf of 12 environmental groups.

In his ruling, Molloy said the federal government had not met its standard for wolf recovery, including interbreeding of wolves between the three states to ensure healthy genetics.

"Genetic exchange has not taken place," Molloy wrote in the 40-page decision.

Molloy said hunting and state laws allowing the killing of wolves for livestock attacks would likely "eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur."

The federal biologist who led the wolf restoration program, Ed Bangs, defended the decision to delist wolves as "a very biologically sound package."

"The kind of hunting proposed by the states wouldn't threaten the wolf population," Bangs said Friday. "We felt the science was rock solid and that the delisting was warranted."

Bangs said government attorneys were reviewing Molloy's court order and would decide next week whether to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal and state officials had argued killing some wolves would not endanger the overall population _ as long as numbers did not dip below 300 wolves. With increasing conflicts between wolves and livestock, they said public hunts were crucial to keeping the predators' population in check.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02630.html

It is from areas heavily populated with humans and domesticated animals the political and financial power comes to regulate the areas where mankind and wild animals interface. The city folk idealistically support the "right" of the preditor to destroy. I think it would be very intertaining if the table was turned and people from Montana and Idaho were allowed to pass laws for the city folk. They understand as little about the city as those from the city understand about the country.

Which brings most to the area's economy? Tourism because of the wolves etc or farming?

I would be curious to find out-bet in terms of jobs created wealth spent in the area by visitors and so on exceeds that of the livestock producers by a wide margin.

Wonderful! Lets devote all of our crops to biofuel and our ranch land to tourism. We can import ALL of our food. Afterall, the most important thing is that we have wonerful recreational opportunities for those who are on vacation from the cities and that we feel good about ourselves. :-5

gmc;923467 wrote: Which brings most to the area's economy? Tourism because of the wolves etc or farming?

I would be curious to find out-bet in terms of jobs created wealth spent in the area by visitors and so on exceeds that of the livestock producers by a wide margin.

Clint;924743 wrote: Wonderful! Lets devote all of our crops to biofuel and our ranch land to tourism. We can import ALL of our food. Afterall, the most important thing is that we have wonerful recreational opportunities for those who are on vacation from the cities and that we feel good about ourselves. :-5


There's room for both. Don't know about the US so I'm not going to argue with you.

Here tourism allows people to live in areas they would normally have to leave to go to the cities to get jobs there being not enough in the rural economy otherwise. It brings in several times the income to the highands 's that the big sporting estates do and there is conflict as a lot of the landowners actively try and discourage mountain biking hillwalking etc to the detriment of everybody else around them. Other jobs follow on if people can stay then you need schools, hospitals, plumbers, engineers etc. etc. towns can grow and become their own raison d'etre with industry following but you need something to kick start it. I was up in Fort William at the weekend, without outdoor sports the place would be completely deserted. The industry developing there is feeding off the back of tourism.

If the activities of one-say farming significantly impact on another-say tourism which generates more wealth which gets most weight? It's just a general question. I really have no idea about montana and the west except they have cowboys and wear funny hats and I'd like to see death valley though, which I think might be in Nevada.

I've lived and done business in a tourist town. There is a saying in those towns, "if the economy catches a cold tourism gets pneumonia". It is a weak industry at best that preys upon the working class. It comes into stable communities and upsets the economy so the folks living off agriculture become poor. I can't understand why anyone would support tourism over food production.

gmc;925141 wrote: There's room for both. Don't know about the US so I'm not going to argue with you.

Here tourism allows people to live in areas they would normally have to leave to go to the cities to get jobs there being not enough in the rural economy otherwise. It brings in several times the income to the highands 's that the big sporting estates do and there is conflict as a lot of the landowners actively try and discourage mountain biking hillwalking etc to the detriment of everybody else around them. Other jobs follow on if people can stay then you need schools, hospitals, plumbers, engineers etc. etc. towns can grow and become their own raison d'etre with industry following but you need something to kick start it. I was up in Fort William at the weekend, without outdoor sports the place would be completely deserted. The industry developing there is feeding off the back of tourism.

If the activities of one-say farming significantly impact on another-say tourism which generates more wealth which gets most weight? It's just a general question. I really have no idea about montana and the west except they have cowboys and wear funny hats and I'd like to see death valley though, which I think might be in Nevada.

Clint;925298 wrote: I've lived and done business in a tourist town. There is a saying in those towns, "if the economy catches a cold tourism gets pneumonia". It is a weak industry at best that preys upon the working class. It comes into stable communities and upsets the economy so the folks living off agriculture become poor. I can't understand why anyone would support tourism over food production.


I'm not and also I wouldn't support it at the expense of food production. In the highlands the issue is just not that simple. We have sporting estates that given half a chance would curb outdoor activities to the detriment of the local economy. It's not as simple as tourism over food production It's a different kind of issue in the UK and comparisons don't help at all. I was just curious to get a sense of the points of view.

It is a weak industry at best that preys upon the working class


I feel the same way about Donald trump and his golf course. I hope he gets told where to stick it and his gated community for the rich as well. We don't have gated estates here and I hope we never do.

Thought you didn't have class issues in the US. (Was going to say thought you didn't have class in the US but decided that was open to misinterpretation)

Clint;924743 wrote: Wonderful! Lets devote all of our crops to biofuel and our ranch land to tourism. We can import ALL of our food. Afterall, the most important thing is that we have wonerful recreational opportunities for those who are on vacation from the cities and that we feel good about ourselves. :-5


Who is suggesting that you turn over the breadbasket to tourism?

Keep some form of balance to your posts and you'll make far more of an impact on your readers.

Balance is a great idea. Talk to a rancher where wolves have been reintroduced and he/she will tell you I'm very balanced. Many people who want to experience the wilderness with the sound of howling wolves would also love to see cattle and sheep removed from range land. Their desire for a growing wolf population is making it increasingly difficult to sustain livestock herds.

Where did I say the breadbasket was being turned over to tourism? A little balance please:D

Bryn Mawr;926238 wrote: Who is suggesting that you turn over the breadbasket to tourism?

Keep some form of balance to your posts and you'll make far more of an impact on your readers.

Clint;926599 wrote: Balance is a great idea. Talk to a rancher where wolves have been reintroduced and he/she will tell you I'm very balanced. Many people who want to experience the wilderness with the sound of howling wolves would also love to see cattle and sheep removed from range land. Their desire for a growing wolf population is making it increasingly difficult to sustain livestock herds.

Where did I say the breadbasket was being turned over to tourism? A little balance please:D


Clint;924743 wrote: Wonderful! Lets devote all of our crops to biofuel and our ranch land to tourism. We can import ALL of our food. Afterall, the most important thing is that we have wonerful recreational opportunities for those who are on vacation from the cities and that we feel good about ourselves. :-5


Sounds pretty much like what you were suggesting to me - taking the idea and pushing it to an extreme that does not exist.

How much range land is there within the wolves territory and how many sheep and cattle have been taken by wolves? That sort of fact would make far more impact than gross exaggeration.

I seem to remember from last time we discussed this that the numbers were very low.

Clint;926599 wrote: Balance is a great idea. Talk to a rancher where wolves have been reintroduced and he/she will tell you I'm very balanced. Many people who want to experience the wilderness with the sound of howling wolves would also love to see cattle and sheep removed from range land. Their desire for a growing wolf population is making it increasingly difficult to sustain livestock herds.

Where did I say the breadbasket was being turned over to tourism? A little balance please:D


We've got idiots here in scotland that want to re-introduce wolves here three centuries after they were wiped out. . Never mind sheep farmers anyone with half a brain can see the problem with that one.

Sounds good to me. Reasonable too.

RedGlitter;926861 wrote: Sounds good to me. Reasonable too.


No it isn't. Bear in mind the size of the place-all it is is an excuse for landowners to fence in their estates and keep everybody out. I find myself agreeing with clint on this one I think.

gmc;927914 wrote: No it isn't. Bear in mind the size of the place-all it is is an excuse for landowners to fence in their estates and keep everybody out. I find myself agreeing with clint on this one I think.


Different situation given the widely differing population density and the amount of territory a wolf pack requires. Scotland does not have the space whereas parts of the Rockies apparently do.

gmc;926781 wrote: We've got idiots here in scotland that want to re-introduce wolves here three centuries after they were wiped out. . Never mind sheep farmers anyone with half a brain can see the problem with that one.


aw, but theyre cute and fwuffy

suzy_creamcheese;927948 wrote: aw, but theyre cute and fwuffy


Only from a distance-close up they are big with teeth.

yeah but i dont mind that. Im in England :driving:

Bryn Mawr;927926 wrote: Different situation given the widely differing population density and the amount of territory a wolf pack requires. Scotland does not have the space whereas parts of the Rockies apparently do.


They will multiply and occupy the space available.

suzy_creamcheese;927948 wrote: aw, but theyre cute and fwuffy


They are also a part of nature's ecosystem as are cows and sheep.

RedGlitter;929686 wrote: They are also a part of nature's ecosystem as are cows and sheep.


Don't forget fuzzy, bald humans. We're part of the system too.

Clint;929681 wrote: They will multiply and occupy the space available.


That has not been allowed to happen and any wolves that take cattle are culled - they quickly learn.

Can you show us how much harm the wolves are doing? Then, maybe, we'd appreciate where you're coming from.

Clint;929767 wrote: Don't forget fuzzy, bald humans. We're part of the system too.


Hehe. Of course we are, Clint. I don't disagree at all. But I don't see why all species can't coexist. It seems whenever a species makes our lives inconvenient somehow, we eradicate it. That messes up the rest of the system. For instance, if we eliminate the wolves, we'll be overrun with rabbits. Then we'll "have" to cull the rabbits to keep them under control so they don't eat all the plants. It's a big circle.

RedGlitter;933530 wrote: Hehe. Of course we are, Clint. I don't disagree at all. But I don't see why all species can't coexist. It seems whenever a species makes our lives inconvenient somehow, we eradicate it. That messes up the rest of the system. For instance, if we eliminate the wolves, we'll be overrun with rabbits. Then we'll "have" to cull the rabbits to keep them under control so they don't eat all the plants. It's a big circle.


I was raised in rural America and have lived there many years of my adult life. Wolves were out of the system for decades and the balance was still working. Coyotes take care of rabbits and have for a long time. I've watched the cycle over and over. Lots of rabbits for a while then lots of coyotes. When there aren't enough rabbits the coyote population declines for the need of food. Wolves are just bigger coyotes that have a greater ability to take down larger animals like cattle, sheep, deer and elk.

Bryn Mawr;933526 wrote: That has not been allowed to happen and any wolves that take cattle are culled - they quickly learn.

Can you show us how much harm the wolves are doing? Then, maybe, we'd appreciate where you're coming from.


Rumor has it they are culled by victims who attach the wolves radio tracking devices to cars visiting from a big city.

Clint;933847 wrote: Rumor has it they are culled by victims who attach the wolves radio tracking devices to cars visiting from a big city.


Rumour was never a good basis for policy whereas figures for the amount of damage caused by the wolves would be a very reasonable start.

even if we got overrun with rabbits, its hardly got the same consequences as being overrun with wolves has it.

The highlands of scotland are fine without introducing predators

Here's an interesting link:

http://dnr.wi.gov/ORG/LAND/ER/mammals/w ... nfarms.htm