Anyone who has been in Yellowstone's Lamar Valley at first light and heard a wolf howl and watch them through binoculars and spotting scopes as they chase after a bison or elk will conclude that they are a beautiful animal and part of the web of life and should be protected forever.

But, unfortunately, as long as there's something "out there" than can potentially harm us, or our precious cows, such as wolves, bears, cougars, terrorists, etc, then we must preempt them and control their numbers. The truth is we need to control our numbers and let nature run its course.

I have interviewed some top wolf experts in the country and found out some interesting facts. For example, in Minnesota, which has ten times more people and wolves than Wyoming, wolves are practically a non-issue. Wolf populations there have been restored, not reintroduced. Minnesota never lost its wolves, so people were used to having them around.

Federal trappers have been killing between one hundred and two hundred wolves in Minnesota each year in response to livestock predation, which is like killing the entire Yellowstone population each year. Yet, the wolf population in Minnesota continues to grow at about five percent a year.

The number of deer taken by wolves each year does not keep the deer population down, as some deer hunters feared. There are more wolves now in Minnesota and also the biggest population of deer the state has ever had. Experts believe that the wolves are not controlling the deer; it's the other way around.

Experts also believe that wolf reintroduction in the West could continue more smoothly if people would take a closer look at Minnesota's case. One of the first steps is to eliminate the myths and paranoia surrounding wolves, such as how they target humans. The number of documented attacks in North America is widely debated, though most biologists and conservationists put it somewhere between zero and three.

The overall recovery in Minnesota has worked well because the people have learned firsthand that the myths are false. Add to that the public education being done by groups like the Izaak Walton League, the International Wolf Center, and Minnesota DNR, and the controversy has been quelled.

One of the biggest obstacles to wolf recovery, like many other controversial issues, is human ignorance—not just among those who are opposed to wolves, but also among wolf advocates.

As one expert put it, "If you don't want wolves to be killed at some point, then don't advocate reintroduction."

Doubtless there are still people in Minnesota who hate wolves, but experts say they don't hear much from them anymore. "There's not much concern with wolves unless you're a farmer and a wolf eats your cow," one expert said. And in that case, compensation is provided by the state. Data indicates that less than one percent of all Minnesota farmers and ranchers have experienced wolf attacks on their livestock.

As in Yellowstone, wolves are benefiting other species in Minnesota, too. There's speculation that wolves are keeping chronic wasting disease at bay in the state. Deer that might have the disease are snuffed out by wolves doing their natural job of culling the sick and weak.

Hunters Wanted: Dead.

How sad. A few weeks ago, here in England, I went for a walk in the woods with two gray wolves, courtesy of the UK Wolf Conservation Trust. A fantastic few hours in the company of these wonderful animals (and, I might add, if the dogs in our town were half as well-behaved as Duma and Dakota, things would be a lot nicer). I hope the plans to cull them get trashed PDQ.

This isuue is far more complex than depicted. That said, wolves need protection. If you want to prorect wolves, then focus on populations. I would love to have wolves in my area, but alas, we only have coyotes. I love the coyotes, but they need to be controlled to prevent disease and attacks on livestock. If we could just reach some kind of practical solution, wolves and farmers/ranchers could survive.

truthmonger..........right on, my cousin is one of the minnesota "federal trappers" of which you speak. he did his masters thesis on the wolves in minnesota and must now reluctantly "cull" the bad ones.

WTF - it's not the hunter's, it's the ranchers.

lastly, i've had wolves circle my tent (in curiousity) and have seen many while hunting (i like to eat elk - sorry if if it offends some). they are harmless and helpful. i take out my camera for pics........they're beautiful creatures that i love living amongst.

Humans(ranchers and hunters) hate wolves because they are natural born predators who do it because they have to--unlike humans who need tools and tricks to do the same.
It is especially pathetic given that wolves have the natural born right to eat meat while humans do not(when humans can take down a deer with their bare hands and teeth they can argue differently).

I do not think ecologically minded humans should be reintroducing wolves into habitat where humans are going to wait until the numbers go up so they can kill them again. This is setting them up for more abuse and misery. Dont reintroduce wolves unless you can guarantee they will be left alone--and the same applies for deer or elk.

State game departments deliberately want to skew deer and elk populations so they have more "stock" to shoot. Some even admit it. State game depts exist for hunters, not to "manage" wildlife(again, humans cant even manage their own populations but somehow they can manage other species? yeah right--human supremacists are such idiots).

Humans are the problem, but ranchers and hunters are truly the pests that need to be removed. Luckily, hunters have a rather good track record of shooting each other so as long as they keep doing that we have some justice in this world.
State game dept stats on deer population intentions found here:
http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com

kelmer, you're right about game departments skewing #'s for deer and elk populations. I've talked with some federal biologists who have flown with state biologists to count elk. When they see about a dozen elk on a snowy sidehill with lots of tracks around, the fed bio told me that he would write down 12 elk while the state bio would write down about 30-50, saying that with all the tracks that's what the # might be.
Numbers of animals = projected # of licenses sold = job security for state employees.
By the way, they are also skewing #'s of cougars. They project about 5000 cougars when there are most likely 2000-3000, then say they need to kill about 2000. In other words, wipe out the cougar population to keep ranchers and hunters happy. Politics almost always wins out over science.

kelmer.............you must be a vegetarian or an idiot........or both.

humans don't have a right to eat meat?? says who?
then go after the ranchers and game farms who displace wildlife with complete bias. also, deer have become a pest and threaten lives (deadly car accidents increasing yearly in urban areas) because there are more deer now than 100 or even 50 or even 10 years ago. too damn many!!

also, ever heard of bow hunting? many animals use tools - not just humans

your characterization and generalization of ALL hunters is grossly overstated and obviously unresearched. too bad.

i wrote to cites in geneva about this issue a few weeks ago. they haven't replied.................yet.

The main issue here is that a small vocal minority of the population is calling the shots while the large majority, the people of the US, who actually own these animals, if you can own a wild animal, are silent and apathetic. This minority has an agenda that they are not afraid to pursue, one centered around personal profit or self indulgence (hunting as a trophy sport to feel 'like a man'). If we allow it, then we are to blame. They'll turn into threatening bullies if we speak out against their agenda, and if we back down, then we are accountable. It's that simple, and I think that is what the author is trying to say.

You may not like it, but once humans consider a species worthy of hunting, they are safe from extinction. Look at the track record. We preserve species that we want to hunt. If you want wolves to spread and do well, make then a game species. This is not about morality, this is about facts.

The truth is that the wolves are good for game species and make the herds of elk and deer more healthy. They do not kill the prime bucks that hunters covet.

As far as the cattle people are concerned, if they are not satisfied with their subsidized grazing near our national parks, get them out of there. I want wolves, I am tired of welfare ranchers.

truthmonger

colorado alone boasts 3,000-7,000 mountain lions. montana, idaho, and the west coast states all have thousands. i have them in my back yard - chasing deer (not in colorado - a different mountain state) well within the city limits of an intermountain town of 6,000.

i encountered one biking last week when 6 miles from the nearest person. just me and him (her). it was beautiful. i wanted to shoot it.......with my camera. (couldn't get it out in time, however.)

human encroachment has created more conflict because cats are territorial by nature. people population is the real problem here.......leave the animals their space.

In my opinion, you can place the blame for this on the cattle industry and the USDA.(which the cattle industry has in their pockets.) Cattle have become so rampant, forests are continuously being destroyed to provide grazing land for them. This in turn encroaches on wildlife habitat and the wildlife pay the price.

Wolves eat more than deer and elk, they actually prefer the smaller game, such as rats, squirrels, etc..... Take away the predators of these smaller game and you have a population explosion, which is what has happened. Then the insects, etc....that is the smaller game's food source explodes with it. You end up with a big eco-imbalance.

To correct this situation, the USDA has taken it upon themselves to poison the game that the wolf and other predators would have normally taken care of. This involves setting out poisons and they use our tax dollars to accomplish this. Last year the USDA spent 29 million dollars accomplishing small pest eradication.

Still, they allow the cattle industry to destroy land. The grazing leads to soil erosion, the waste that the cattle excrete poisons streams and rivers with the growth hormones and antibiotics the cattle are implanted with. There is an instance of one contaminated stream where the fish have all changed gender. There are no females left, they are all males. There have been mutated frogs found in these streams. Could this be just a coincidence?

The USDA does not monitor cattle processing plants as they should. In response to the threat of BSE from the cattle, they have authorized the cattle to be irradiated. The bottom line here is they dont care about the health of consumers, why should they care about wildlife?

I for one don't eat beef. I refuse to support an industry with such blatant disregard for our water, our earth and our ecological balance. Forget shooting a wolf, shoot a cow instead.

Contrary to what somebody mentioned above, the issue is not more complicated than stated. It's very simple.
For having lived in the West, in the Mid-Waste, I mean the Mid-West I have observed one thing:
In this country as in many, but very much in this one, people in the country are morons, idiots. The only rural state where I haven't met huge population of lobotomized idiots is Vermont. After almost ten years in several of the squares called States that compose the middle of the country I can only think of people living there for what they are. Morons shooting beer cans in their yards while waiting to shoot any kind of creatures as soon as the season starts.
My view is simple minded, narrow minded, a cliche, stupid, well, that's the way I'll keep it when dealing with any issues west of Pennsylvannia and East of San Francisco.
FOr that big no man's land between the cost, keep things simple, no need of complicated theories. It works.
Phil

phil

glad you're there...........i left the big city many years ago (used to do helicopter traffic reports - gag).

out here (rurally),you're right, people like to kill animals, and eat them..........where you live they like to kill each other. (back at ya with the morons idiots bit)

i expect the city bias (and ignorance) against us bumpkins........that's why i left the city and enjoy my time with the grizzlies, the wolves, and the mountain lions.........it's safer here and i know what to expect from the other creatures

so all you smog suckers.........leave our water alone, leave our dams and forests alone, and leave our state issues to us who know firsthand.

and keep your dogs at home

I wish the geniuses on the coasts would stay there. First of all the ecological bull you learned in school has been proven to be dribble. Wolves/preditors rairly control their prey populations. However the diseases that regulate prey species do control the preditors. I will not defend the moron poachers that flaunt hunting regulations, but I will say that I have shot my share of cans (not beer cans since firearms and booze do not mix well). If you look at the record of regulated game, you will see that hunting has been a great tool to protect game. I agree with the poster that referred to cattle grazing welfare, but when wolf hunting becomes legal, you may find these folks switching to guiding hunts. I wish we had wolves in our area, although mountain lions would make me a little uneasy about my children. Wolves are making a strong comeback, and we are unlikely to see this stop. I had my first sighting of a bobcat last year and it was the highlight of my deer hunting season.

At the mention of "guided hunts," I'm compelled to describe one documented about 20 years ago. The hunt was for the cougar and the state was Idaho. The camera crew followed the "guides", riding with them in their 4x4. After a rough, jumpy ride through the still snowy mountains, the guides and the client halted and the tough-guy hunter man-fun began. Then the hounds were loosed and the hunt was "on," with the guides carrying radio gear receiving directional signals from collars worn by the dogs. After some time standing next to their vehicles their radios emitted a blaring tone. With great excitement (I'm serious, they acted like they had just harpooned Moby Dick), the head guide threw his cigarette butt into a snow bank and explained that the radio's tone indicated a treed animal, the collars being sensitive the the dogs orientation, such as barking upward or on two legs. The client, an obese Texan wearing a hat that would embarrass Yosemite Sam (I kid you not, I don't have the satirical imagination to invent this), followed the guides to the tree holding the tawny, muscular and terrified cat, walked as close to the tree as the pack of excited dogs permitted and aimed his magnum revolver and fired. The first shot injured and stunned the prey, which began to slip down the tree's bark, it's claws ripping desperate grooves. With another round the prey was finished and the client proceeded home, proud with his "trophy," and full of the satisfaction that only accomplished hunters can enjoy. I have no idea if the cougar is "managed" as "game," but I can scarcely conceive the tragic impoverishment suffered by the hunter bereft of his beloved prey, were it to be unavailable for lack of competent state "protection." I'm reminded of a remark made by Edward Abbey, which went something like this: "Whenever I see a photograph of a hunter posed with his prey, I marvel at the aesthetic and moral superiority of the dead animal over the live one." Abbey was of course being sarcastic. For the hunter photographed, however, the sentiment is apparently serious. I will now wait for the howls of outrage and temper-tantrums of disrespected hunters.

jerrys and Mr Obvious said something like: ...once humans consider a species worthy of hunting, they are safe from extinction. Look at the track record.

Indeed: Mastodons, Tasmanian Devil, Carrier Pigeon, Dodo, Caspian Tiger, Great Auk, Auroks, Stella's Sea Cow, Amazon River Dolphin, Quagga, almost all American mammals and more.

Oh, and the Tasmanian Aboriginal was hunted to near extinction (but extinguished 40 years later after murder was considered a crime).

Indeed.

There isn't much "hunting" going on these days. Most "hunters" get their fill of beer and drive around on forest roads with their guns out the windows or other hunters riding in the back of their pickups. I have seen this with my own eyes and have also ridden with game wardens during the season and participated in decoy operations. It's truly amazing the number of idiots out there. I have hunted since I was a kid but am seriously thinking about giving it up since it's getting too dangerous out there plus there aren't as many deer and elk as there used to be due to poaching and poor management. Cougars or wolves or bears are not decimating herds. As one biologist said to me - "The number of animals killed each year is mostly based on the number of bullets flying out there."

Could be that a movement to boycott goods produced in Wisconsin (cheese)and Idaho (potatoes) and Minnesota might be of some help. That might give the other inhabitants of those states who have no inclination or need to slaughter wolves an incentive to help reign in their few stone age neighbors who do.

It all goes back to Little Red Riding Hood and the big bad wolf and don't forget about the Three Little Pigs! Fear of wolves is so deeply ingrained in our culture it is difficult to change.

I do believe that ranchers should be reimbursed for cattle killed by wolves. I believe it is a price we pay for having predators in our lives. I doubt that the cost would be significant given the availability of other game. That would be a compromise that would knock the legs out from under the cattle industries arguments regarding the necessity of killing wolves. There has to be a better way than killing wolves.

It is sad. My hands are tied about going after the ranchers and hunters,who do everyday more damage to animals then those wolves could ever dream of doing.
Hunters just shooting trouphy size game thus throwing monkey wrenches into the wildlife gene pool. And ranchers with their cattle and sheep destroying into extinction countless varieties of plant life. not to mention polluting waterways.
But it is all about the Wolf. who knows what to do to keep a balance in their environs.
I'll tell you folks like that old movie it rings true. It's A Mad Mad Mad World.
It makes you kind of wonder how the human speciies has existed as long as it has.
Can we stop the killing of wolves Doubtful.
Because if we could the NRA would lose money and we cannot have that.

I cannot dispute the many things said about "hunters", although I do not consider these guys hunters but rather poachers. As far as the extinct animals mentioned above, I should have qualified my statement that wildlife managed for hunting almost ensures a healthy population. I was not referring to mastidons. While I also find the couger hunts a bid odd, I do enjoy hunting deer in my area, and although turkey are legal, I am awaiting higher populations in my immediate area before taking up this sport. While I started bow hunting deer to protect my Christmas tree crop, I now manage most of our farm for deer and wildlife (much to my wife's dismay - she would like to see them extinct due to the damage). Your moral stand on hunting is your business, but the fact is, if you want thriving packs of wolves, managed hunting is a sure fire way to achieve this. Increased enforcement of rules would also be a great help. I do not go near the edges of our farm during gun season until the game warden has come out to clean out the trespassing poachers. As with most bad apples, poachers get most of the attention, but I do not think they are majority, and respectful hunters would like to see them go extinct. Hunting has one additional advantage, wolves would learn a healthy fear of humans that is in their best interest.

You all give me a break you country people who think guys in cities are morons.
Yeah, everybody has a Ph.D in Biology in the countryside, uh? Look how long it took to peasants armed with rudimentary rifle to eradicate wild life in this country? If concerned people, not all living in the country, hadn't implemented laws there would be no animal life left today. I've seen hunters in Illinois. Magnificent creatures. I remember a 30 feet high tower built in wood at the edge of a corn field. One fall I actually saw three morons in that tower kill a deer at more than 200 yards. The deer were crossing a field, the morons had an amazing rifle with a scope the size of the Hubble telescope. One shot and a deer was down. But not dead. The rest of the animals ran under cover. The three retards walked to the deer. It took those three obese idiots a fair amount of time to reach that poor animal that was still alive on the ground, trying to raise on the ground, but could. I could see him looking at the three retards approaching. Do you know how they finished the deer? With a handgun, and it took more than one bullet. I wish I had a camera. Months later I was walking a friend with her dog, summer time, no more hunting. Guess what we found in huge quantity under the town? Two objects: empty shells, huge amount of it. What were they firing on? And beer cans. I have no problems with people who need to hunt to put meat on the table. I believe we don't have that in 2008 on the USA. Hunters kill because they like to kill. Period. End of discussion. Look at the amount of white trash who used to kill deer at 200 yards and who are snipers in the Military these days? You guys in the country still have something to shoot because WE, in the cities have been protecting wild life. And if one day you start drinking clean water and breath clean air it's also going to be because somebody in some city busted her butt around.

Mr. Obvious,
I'd like to publicly thank you for two-out-of-four comments of yours with which I actually agree quite strongly. From my own personal perspective, that's a higher ratio than many articles' comments of yours that I've read. Truly, the smile on my face is not sarcastic.

I would disagree with you on one point, however. My major advisor was and is a highly-regarded ecology professor, published and tenured and one of his books is widely regarded as a must-read in many biological sciences curricula. What I learned from him is decidedly NOT dribble. That predators "control" prey populations is not an assertion you want to go up against unless you can solidly back that statement up with research--preferably your own. The word "control," however, deserves the "fingerquote" markup, because "control" can mean many things to many people.

I grew up in Wisconsin. Deer outnumber humans. That isn't good. 30,000 collisions per year on the highways and country roads, CWD threatening a major state industry (well, at least I consider deer hunting to be a major industry, given all the ancillary economic benefits it carries) and Doherty's observations of the botanical impact of "too many deer" fits well with my 34 years of watching the Wisconsin countryside change.

Between the deer population and the wolf population, the one that should be aggressively culled is the former, not the latter. Game management is operating either with blinders, or with one hand tied behind its back when it equates to limiting predators (who, by the way, are quite capable of limiting themselves) for the sake of superfluous quantities of prey--who multiply like rabbits in the agricultural reality that is the Wisconsin landscape.

Personally, I could give a rat's ass about Christmas tree farms and my mother's prized collection of Hosta, but I understand the dynamics involved. Let the wolf run free and we'll see the deer population driven back down to SUSTAINABLE levels. Stop trying to "manage" the top predators (unless you're talking about humans, of course) and focus on sane "management" of the prey.

thewonderingyou - While I do not hunt preditors as a rule, I have taken out a couple of coyotes when the opportunity presented itself. They are in high numbers in our area and growing due to the successful campain to make those that wear furs feel like criminals. When the next wave of distemper, or perhaps rabies, comes through, I expect things will change. What we really need in my area are grizzly bears (or better yet lions) to greet those intelligent city folks when they are strolling through the woods. My comment on prey control with preditors is based primarily on the common example given in text books (wolves and rabbits). The rabbit cycle is actually a disease cycle and affected little by wolves. This may not apply to larger game with lower reproductive capacity. I did not hunt at all until I was 30 and needed to control deer, but I clearly hunt now for pleasure. I eat the deer because I kill them. I do not kill them so that I can eat them. Having spent most of my life thinking that hunting was at best silly, I will not try to convert anyone to hunting who is opposed to it. If you eat meat, then I will say that being morally opposed to hunting seems a bit hipocritical.

I find it amazing how many wackos there are in urbia who have no idea whatsoever about life in the west.... who don't know and don't want to know. Who prefer to spew truisms and stereotypes about rural people and are utterly indifferent to the concerns and needs of the farming and ranching community. In their Walt Disney fantasy land, Montana and Wyoming are theme parks there for their enjoyment, and those of us who live here are merely an inconvenience if we are not providing services to them in their journeys through fantasy land. In the urban mythology, we are a all just a bunch of fat beer swilling gun toting rednecks determined to exterminate your precious wolves. The truth however is much different. In this ranching community 90 miles north of Yellowstone Park the residents are for the most part highly educated hard working people. Ranchers who have been on the land for generations. There is virtually no BLM land, and the ranches are freehold properties built on the sweat of generations of men and women....... not as many would have it..... on taxpayer subsidies. There are no subsidy payments to cattle ranchers, and the wool subsidy no longer exists. The gray wolf was exterminated largely throughout this range because it was completely incompatible with ranching. They make no distinction between wild game and domestic cattle and sheep, and other livestock. The range of individual wolves is vast, and we always have them passing through. There are huge numbers of deer here, and fortunately they provide abundant prey. We don't lose a lot of cattle or sheep to wolves..... until one decides that they are easy prey and discovers the reason we raise Black Angus for beef. It is far better eating than venison. We had a wolf kill just a few days ago.... a calf. And as always the biologist in spite of the owner having seen the wolf shortly before the kill, and the kill being characteristic of a wolf kill attempted to attribute the depredation to first and eagle, and second a coyote.... The physical evidence of wolf tracks at the scene finally removed all doubt. This wolf will kill cattle again, and eventually have to be killed. Meanwhile the rancher looses many hundreds of dollars...... Money which in spite of supposed funds for compensation, will NEVER be compensated...... it never is.
The gray wolf "recovery" program was foisted off on an unwilling population, with complete contempt and indifference for their concerns and well being by folks determined to create their Walt Disney fantasy land in our back yard. It is a done deal....... like the Iraq invasion...... and now we must live with the consequences. Control of the wolf population is a MUST...... Like all predators, their numbers will continue to increase so long as there is prey available. Wolves do not have any reason to stay within the boundaries of public lands, and prey includes anything that walks and breaths. Control is a necessity..... It MUST BE DONE if the wolf is to coexist with man in this modern world. Allowing the numbers to increase unchecked will doom the project to ultimate failure as the backlash will ultimately result in virtual extermination and a return to the way things were. Control is done by killing....... Wolves do not practice birth control. It is also important that fear of man be instilled into the population. That they learn to avoid contact with man and with livestock, and that those that do not are killed. The world seems to be full of "animal rights" activists who believe wolves and grizzles should be allowed to reproduce unchecked, and are little more than harmless lovely Disney characters. It would seem a hopeless case to try to explain the realities to them. Thankfully there are enough people with their feet on the solid ground of reality that it has been possible to begin the process of control, establishing a stable population of these animals within reasonable boundaries, and at reasonable numbers. I am neither a rancher, nor a hunter....... though most of my friends and acquaintances are. Like most rural westerners I carry a loaded weapon and do not hesitate to use it when I see predators such as coyotes near a neighbor's sheep or calving cows. It is a fact of life, and has nothing to do with "hatred" for predators or a desire to wipe them from the face of the earth. We have a large population of coyotes out here, and they largely steer clear of livestock and people as a result of this policy. A bullet through the heart is a quick and clean death compared to that of a sheep or calf with it's entrails ripped out being eaten while still alive as we all have seen many times.... or dying slowly in the hot sun abandoned by the predator that killed it........ while magpies peck away at it's eyes. This is not a Disney movie...... it is real life, with real people, and real animals. We birth these animals with our own hands many times........ I've assisted both ewes and cows give birth........ when without my help they would have died...... I've had blood and afterbirth on my hands, and manure on my boots like most of my rancher friends. I've dealt in birth, and in death......... I've delivered young animals into this world, and dispatched both livestock and predators into eternity. Don't come to Montana and try to mold it into some kind of fantasy land......... You folks obviously have no conception whatsoever of life in the rural west........ not at all!!

Howard

I got in with the wrong crowd somehow. My species thinks the murder of any other species is a harmless pastime, and my country thinks torture is essential to its survival.

stonetool, I have helped manage a herd of cattle. I have seen cougars and wolves and never have killed one of them even though they may take the occasional calf.

I have neighbors who will use any excuse to kill. One left a pile of deer to rot lest they eat some of "his" grass. The fact that you know first hand that all life is a desperate struggle does not make you John Wayne.

Nietzsche - I guess its OK to kill the cattle if you say "nice boy" up till the time you slit its thoat. You must be a higher form of being then us cruel hunters.

@StoneTool. Howard, I find it amazing how many wackos there are in rural areas who have no idea whatsoever about how much knowledge there is in urban areas about remote living.

Although I was raised in the 'burbs and lived in cities, I have spent my life in working in regions where the nearest person is over 1,000 miles away, and now run a property in a remote part of NM, it bothers me that some rural dwellers take the high road against city dwellers. By doing so, you earn respect as a "country bumpkin".

It is interesting how many posters advocate local solution (e.g. local food production) and then want to impose urban solutions on a rural population. If you read through the posts above, you will see that this all started with demeaning remarks about rural folks (e.g "Hunters Wanted: Dead." "Humans are the problem, but ranchers and hunters are truly the pests that need to be removed." "people in the country are morons, idiots" etc.). What do you think the response would be? I say release wolves in the suburbs. They will find plenty of easy prey there.

Stonetool you say "A bullet through the heart is a quick and clean death compared to that of a sheep or calf with it's entrails ripped out being eaten while still alive as we all have seen many times…. or dying slowly in the hot sun abandoned by the predator that killed it…….. while magpies peck away at it's eyes. This is not a Disney movie…… it is real life, with real people, and real animals."

This is nature, you have encroached on wildlife habitat. I venture to say that the wildlife existed on the land you speak of, long before you. And you speak of how horribly they kill a calf? What about you Ranchers who leave calves penned up in an area so small they cannot even move? What about taking them from their mothers 2 days after birth? What about the fact that you feed them derivatives of slaughtered cattle? "BloodMilk". Keep them immobile, make them anemic, all for the love of "tender veal". Then, let's speak about the thousands of cattle you have sent to slaughter. Do you think that all of them die a merciful death at the hands of the person who operates the captive bolt stunner? Do you have a clue how many are not stunned properly and go thru the line kicking and screaming, only to have their hide ripped from them while they are still alive and conscious? How many downed cattle have you seen poked and prodded unmercifully to get them to stand, I mean after all, we know downed cattle are not allowed on the line. Don't speak to me about being an urban idiot. Are you in denial, or simply not aware of the truitis you refer to?

This is where things get interesting. Do you believe that the earth should be stripped of human beings to protect "nature", or are we protecting nature for the enjoyment of human beings? If you believe the latter, then protecting cattle from wolves in no different than applying an organic insecticide to your tomatoes to protect them from pest insects. Better yet, you should not turn under the soil to even plant your tomatoes because something using the previous plants might be harmed. I do not advocate cruelty, but maintaining a population of wolves with managed hunting is hardly as devastating as spreading out agriculture over more acres using low-productivity techniques like "organic" methods that rely on large quantities of livestock to produce fertilizer.

In the region of Colorado where my parents live there was such an over abundance of deer this winter, the animals were starving. Believe it or not, the state instituted a feeding program for them. (Why? Because they are tourist attractions?) This caused herds of deer to swarm around a major N-S thoroughfare and caused numerous car accidents, and in one case, a family very close to my parents were nearly killed.

If we promoted a natural balance of species and human presence instead of thinking of our own short term interests, this problem would work itself out closer to the way nature intended it to.

I think we need to reevaluate our belief system and our fears, as far as people and nature are concerned. Our lives become impoverished every time this planet starts to lose a species.

We should not be so arrogant to assume we have the understanding of the natural world to meddle and control the existence of species to the extent we do. In fact we don't control species based on an understanding at all. We do it regardless of understanding.

Animals, including those we fear, have a right to exist that is as fundamental as any right to exist we have as humans. And those animals we fear are also a rich source of mystery for humans and are part of the fabric of meaning for human existence.

We need to respect life, period, and use our intelligence to work out ways of coexisting, not exterminating.

When there is one less life form there is that much greater potential for bleak, imaginationless mono-life encroaching on human consciousness.

auspiciousbunny - I don't recall anyone suggesting wiping out wolves, Rather the discussion concerns managing populations. Where I live, when overpopulation by deer starts to affect the ecosystem, we have managed hunts. The regular deer hunting season is managed regionally based on populations and deer-car collisions. We have great deer hunting opportunities and a thriving herd of deer. When wildlife biologists manage wildlife rather than politicians or the public, things often work out pretty well.

stonetool, there are so few large game animals like grizzlies in most places you have to look for them to find them. I would argue your attitude is that of those who haven't actually researched the actual degree of danger animals such as bears really pose to human beings.

Check the statistics, first of all. For instance, how many human-bear related deaths annually as compared to human-car related deaths?

I worked as a journalist in a rural area with bears, and I know what the numbers are. You are more likely to get accidentially shot by a hunter than you are likely to get killed by a bear. And you are much more likely to be killed by a car.

I have seen bears dozens upon dozens of times. Certainly it is advisable to respect a large animal like a bear. However, just because people like to trade animal horror stories does not offer evidence statistically that they are a substantial threat to humans. In most cases one or two animal related incidents are blown completely out of proportion in local yore.

Looking at reality, if we need to eliminate something because of its threat to human life, than there is no arguing that the automobile should go first and foremost. People should trade legends warning of car accidents. That would be helpful and maybe even save some human lives.

Thank heaven for Jim Doherty because he tells it as it is. We are witnessing a
return to the "good old days" when man killed, to near extinction, the buffalo
and wolves. History is about to repeat itself. The Yellowstone buffalo
are being killed, no slaughtered, more than 1,100 this season alone and now
Idaho, Wyoming are ready to kill off the wolves. My passion is wolves and I find it disheartening that people know very little about this magnificent animals. You might be surprised to learn (1) there has never been a reported attack on a human (2) wolves live in packs (family units) (3) have been known to mate for life (3) they hunt to eat and provide for their pack (4) the wolf's enemy "man". The earth/ground I walk on and the wildlife living among us are precious to me and I'm fearful the treasures of this country, i.e. national parks, national forests, public lands, and our wildlife are in jeopardy is disappearing. Remember "extinction is forever".

Mr. Obvious,

I was not devaluing the role of wildlife biologists. I was simply stating we, who perhaps have not studied biology, need to think a little more deeply about life forms other than our own. Sadly, decisions are often in the hands of people who are not wildlife biologists.

Do wildlife biologists have anything to do with the county policy of feeding the overpopulation of deer in western Colorado?

This is a region where locals feel they have carte blanche to shoot predatory animals, including wolves, coyotes and mountain lions, regardless of the laws. Nearby, a mountain lion (for which there is a very limited hunting policy I believe in the state) was found shot dead and frozen in a creek this winter. It happens all the time.

There is a mentality locally that it is the right of people to shoot any animal that hunts that is seen around their place, whether or not it has attacked domestic animals. And from what I've seen generally it hasn't, because this is thought of as some kind of "control" of these animals.

This isn't based on science.

Mr. Obvious, you said it better than I could have.

auspiciousbunny - We agree that prevention of illegal hunting (poaching) needs more enforcement. More funds devoted to wildlife management and less interference by lay people would be great. Objectives can and should be set by communities, but policies to achieve those goals should be in the hands of experts. I certainly support the maintenance of healthy wolf packs where the local population supports this. I think that you would find that most would support this as long as there was reasonable ability to limit populations and discourage wildlife behaviors that interfere with agricultural operations. I would put my faith in the wildlife experts to design such programs.

Americans are the most appalingly stupid people on the face of the planet. Their inability to see the whole picture has got to be a genetic fault. God help us!!!

KCUSICK - Your genius shines through in your post. I am in awe.

Wolf hunts are ill-advised. One only need to watch the PBS specials on top predators to finally understand the impact of removing these wonderous creatures from our mist. Unfortunately, the overwhelming, insane desire to own and use guns, no matter who or what gets hurt is a cancer on our society and seems to infect men on a more contagious level than women. For a country that boast how "great" and "advanced" we are; we haven't got a clue about nature and even with all the education in the world, this desire "to kill something" just undoes everything our naturist and biologist have worked to achieve the last 30 years. America is going to drown by our own hands in all this blood.

Rockerbabe1 - Seems to work well in black bear country. The populations are stable, and, for the most part, the animals stay out of trouble. Compare this to the places where hunts are not allowed.

I don't like the hunting of large predator animals. Our history is full of unregulated slaughter to the point of extinction for so many animals that it is a shame. We never seem to learn from our history or past mistakes. . .it always seems so important to let idiots with guns have their kill. I think they are the ones that need to become extinct, not the wolves, bears, shark or any other animal already on this people-crowded earth.

Rockerbabe1 - Just said that regulated hunts work. I didn't say you have to like them. Law abiding hunters are often the first ones to turn in the poachers and to fund increased habitat.