Wolves: USF&W sued
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
Whocares 14-Jan-21
Screwball 14-Jan-21
Medicinemann 14-Jan-21
Jaquomo 14-Jan-21
paul@thefort 14-Jan-21
Mule Power 15-Jan-21
WV Mountaineer 15-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 15-Jan-21
NoWiser 15-Jan-21
thedude 15-Jan-21
Pete In Fairbanks 15-Jan-21
No Mercy 15-Jan-21
Brotsky 15-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 15-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 15-Jan-21
Vonfoust 15-Jan-21
NoWiser 15-Jan-21
db999 15-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 15-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 15-Jan-21
BigOzzie 15-Jan-21
standswittaknife 15-Jan-21
IdyllwildArcher 15-Jan-21
skookumjt 15-Jan-21
Mule Power 15-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 15-Jan-21
Shaft2Long 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
WV Mountaineer 16-Jan-21
Grasshopper 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
Jaquomo 16-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 16-Jan-21
Pete In Fairbanks 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 16-Jan-21
Matt 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
Jaquomo 16-Jan-21
Mule Power 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
Jaquomo 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
Jaquomo 16-Jan-21
Glunt@work 16-Jan-21
Mule Power 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
Stix 16-Jan-21
TrapperKayak 16-Jan-21
Jaquomo 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
Jaquomo 16-Jan-21
Mule Power 16-Jan-21
paul@thefort 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
jjs 16-Jan-21
orionsbrother 16-Jan-21
KSflatlander 16-Jan-21
paul@thefort 16-Jan-21
Huntcell 16-Jan-21
steve 16-Jan-21
WV Mountaineer 16-Jan-21
paul@thefort 17-Jan-21
TEmbry 17-Jan-21
KSflatlander 17-Jan-21
TEmbry 17-Jan-21
Mule Power 17-Jan-21
paul@thefort 17-Jan-21
trophyhill 18-Jan-21
trublucolo 18-Jan-21
From: Whocares
14-Jan-21
Six environmental groups filed suit today against the US Fish and Wildlife service to put the Gray Wolves back on the endangered list. Surprise, surprise.

From: Screwball
14-Jan-21
As exepected

From: Medicinemann
14-Jan-21
Now if we could just get those environmental groups on the same list....lol

From: Jaquomo
14-Jan-21
No need for a suit. Haasland will direct USFWS to do it before the ink is dry on her appointment.

From: paul@thefort
14-Jan-21
yEP, AS EXPECTED------------------Wolves in Colorado: Who has Authority? Until 2021, the gray wolf had been protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) in Colorado since 1974. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a rule to delist the species nationwide on November 3, 2020, which returned management control of the species to state and tribal wildlife agencies, including CPW, on January 4, 2021. _NOTE------However, previous federal rules delisting gray wolves have routinely been litigated once finalized. If that pattern continues here -- which is likely -- federal listing status may be unclear in the immediate term. Regardless, the species remains listed as endangered under state law in Colorado, and take of gray wolves will remain prohibited.

From: Mule Power
15-Jan-21
Whatever. Same crap different day. Buy a wolf tag and if you see a wolf shoot it. If the state and the people can see plain as day that we need to hunt wolves and they prohibit hunting do your job as a steward of the land.

15-Jan-21
Yep.

From: TrapperKayak
15-Jan-21
My BIL who 'Yoosta be a Yooper', has family there yet, and he knows that many there just sss. No problem imo, they are abundant and increasing. I don't condone breaking federal wildlife or ESA laws but I don't think wolves should be,afforded that protection in every situation and locale either. Only the ones that,are truely 'endangered' as proven by real science.

From: NoWiser
15-Jan-21
Poaching doesn't make you a steward of the land...it makes you a criminal.

From: thedude
15-Jan-21
Nowiser dont break an arm jerk### yourself off.

15-Jan-21
Wait! What? I thought the Lefties were all about SCIENCE!

As it turns out, I guess they meant "political science....."

Pete

From: No Mercy
15-Jan-21
EXACTLY Pete!!

From: Brotsky
15-Jan-21
Pete hit the wolf squarely in the head!

From: TrapperKayak
15-Jan-21
No lefty here... Scientist yes, Conservative yes ( ya CAN be both) , hunt/shoot/trap wolves...yes. Poach...no. Kill truely endangered species, no.

From: TrapperKayak
15-Jan-21
Gray w es are NOT endangered. They should be delisted. The six enviro groups need to STFU.

From: Vonfoust
15-Jan-21
Trapper I was under the impression that the gray wolf is not endangered?

From: NoWiser
15-Jan-21
Dude, I'd be willing to bet I've killed more wolves than you've seen. They need to be delisted and managed by the states. Nevertheless, advocating poaching on a hunting site is bad optics. Yes, this is getting frustrating, but poaching is not the answer.

From: db999
15-Jan-21
A man can hope right? I hope they get re-listed (will stop the nonsense going on in Colorado right now). And then I would like to hope that everywhere wolves have recovered and then some become "Sanctuary States".

From: TrapperKayak
15-Jan-21
International Wolf Center Home/Wolf Info/Wolf News/Original articles/Endangered Species Act explainer GRAY WOLVES TO BE REMOVED FROM ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTIONS In September, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told the Associated Press that, by the end of 2020, gray wolves would no longer be federally protected in the lower 48 states.

Given that, it came as no surprise that it was formally announced on Oct. 29 that wolves will be removed from the Endangered Species List. The final rule will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, meaning that the ruling would take effect on Jan. 4, 2021. Jurisdiction for wolf management will now return to each state, similar to management of deer, bears and most resident species. In the short term, this ruling mostly impacts Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota as wolves in those Great Lakes states are federally protected under the ESA. In the long term, this ruling means there will be no federal protections for gray wolves in any state.

Of course, legal challenges are expected to be filed in response to this delisting. In fact, the first challenges were filed Nov. 5, 2020. More information on those can be found here.

So what would it look like if wolves did not have those federal protections? Will there be hunting seasons on wolves across the lower 48 states? What’s next for wolves?

Those are important questions we hope to answer here as well as through regular updates on our website at wolf.org and through our various social media platforms.

Background

Gray wolves have had an on-again, off-again relationship with the Endangered Species Act since they were first listed as endangered by the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1967 and legally protected in 1974 by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. There’s no question the Act helped wolf populations in the lower 48 states. Populations rebounded naturally in some places and with reintroduction efforts in Yellowstone National Park and Idaho.

The gray wolf population in Minnesota appeared to stabilize and that population helped grow the number of wolves in northern Wisconsin. That population then spread into Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. In the early 1980s, meanwhile, wolves that had dispersed from Canada were crossing over the border into northwest Montana. That population was bolstered by the Yellowstone reintroduction in 1995 and 1996.

As their numbers grew and met the biological criteria of the USFWS wolf recovery plans, efforts began to remove wolves from the Endangered Species Act. Congress delisted wolves in Montana, Idaho and parts of Utah, Washington and Oregon in 2011. In other parts of the country, such as the Midwest, wolves have been on and off the list and were federally protected until this recent decision by the USFWS. The estimated 10,000 wolves in Alaska are not and never were protected by the Endangered Species Act.

The latest ruling means that no states have federal protections in place for gray wolves, including those where wolves do not currently live. If wolves were to repopulate Utah, for example, they would not be federally protected. This doesn’t mean they won’t have any protections at all however. Wolves in California, for instance, are protected by state laws, having been granted protection by the state’s ESA in 2014.

Going forward, each state will determine the level of protection wolves receive and how they are managed.

Source: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/population/mi_wi_nos.html

Why did this happen?

In its original proposal to remove the wolf from federal protection, the USFWS wrote: “We propose this action because the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entities do not meet the definitions of a threatened species or endangered species under the Act due to recovery.”

State management plans in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota have long included state-prescribed minimum populations. Those minimum population figures were surpassed, according to state estimates, many years ago.

In Minnesota, for example, the minimum population of 1,600 was reached many years ago. The Wisconsin target of 350 and the Michigan target of 200 have also been eclipsed.

Minnesota hosts an estimated 2,600 wolves. Wisconsin estimates a minimum of 1,000 and Michigan nearly 700. The USFWS wolf recovery plan only required at least 100 wolves between Michigan and Wisconsin combined, and 1,250 in Minnesota for at least five consecutive years.

Estimates, though, are just that. Many wolf supporters think the population estimates are overcounting wolves. Wolf detractors, meanwhile, believe that the wolf populations are underestimated. (To watch a webinar on how the MN wolf population is estimated, follow this link: bit.ly/mnwolfcount).

What was the process for delisting?

The USFWS says that the ultimate goal of the Endangered Species Act is to “recover species so they no longer need [federal] protection. Recovery plans describe the steps needed to restore a species to ecological health.”

Wolf Recovery Plans were written by biologists with federal, state, local agencies and tribes.

The Department of the Interior issued a press release about the ruling, which reads, in part:

“The United States Fish and Wildlife Service based its final determination solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, a thorough analysis of threats and how they have been alleviated and the ongoing commitment and proven track record of states and tribes to continue managing for healthy wolf populations once delisted. This analysis includes the latest information about the wolf’s current and historical distribution in the contiguous United States.

“‘After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery,’ said Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. ‘Today’s announcement simply reflects the determination that this species is neither a threatened nor endangered species based on the specific factors Congress has laid out in the law.'”

To read the full press release, click here.

To learn more about the ESA process, click here.

What happens next?

States with wolves have management plans for them, and some states are updating them.

In Minnesota, for example, a group of residents representing farmers, trappers, hunters, environmentalists and the general public have been meeting to discuss significant updates to the state’s plan, which was last updated in 2001.

The last time these three states managed their own wolf populations was 2012, 2013 and 2014, when the wolf was delisted for a few years. During that time, regulated public wolf hunts were held in Minnesota (2012-14), Wisconsin (2012-14) and Michigan (2013 only).

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service will monitor wolf populations for five years to “ensure the continued success of the species,” according to the press release they issued on Oct. 29.

Want to learn more?

To see the proposed rule to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act, follow this link.

To read more about the work being done to update Minnesota’s wolf management plan, follow this link. This work will be especially important as Minnesota has the largest population of gray wolves in the lower 48 states.

To learn more about the history of the gray wolf’s status on the Endangered Species Act, click here.

To view a detailed timeline on the history of the gray wolf in the contiguous United States, click here.

Mexican wolves

This ruling does not pertain to Mexican wolves or red wolves.

International Wolf Center The International Wolf Center advances the survival of wolf populations by teaching about wolves, their relationship to wildlands and the human role in their future.

© Copyright - International Wolf Center SubscribeEmploymentInternshipsMediaAbout UsFinancial StatementsPrivacySitemap

From: TrapperKayak
15-Jan-21
sorry about that, could not post the link alone. I do not support relisting of gray wolves. I do support hunting seasons on them, very liberal seasons on them....the only way could be anything liberal.

From: BigOzzie
15-Jan-21
Let me guess it came through Judge Malloy in Missoula MT.??? oz

15-Jan-21
Was BCH&A one of the groups listed in the lawsuit?

15-Jan-21
No, it was not BHA.

Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Oregon Wild, and the Humane Society of the United States.

The usual actors.

From: skookumjt
15-Jan-21
The lawsuits were filed in northern California.

From: Mule Power
15-Jan-21
No Wiser... times have changed. It used to be that laws made sense. They were pretty much common sense. Not anymore. Now they are the result of selfish people with warped agendas and a whole lot of money. Also some friends in the right places. You might choose to use the word outlaw but I use the word ethical. Everyone knows that wolves have never been close to endangered. Everyone knows that they are absolutely terrorizing game populations. Eliminating hunting opportunities and literally wiping out herds in some areas. The people who caused this mess are the real outlaws. I will not stand still for that crap!

From: TrapperKayak
15-Jan-21
Earthjustice is considered an Ecoterrorist group.

From: Shaft2Long
16-Jan-21
The dip shits constantly say “ follow the science.” Don’t know why the science can’t be accepted in court and silence this one and for all.

Secondly, and I could be way off base on this, the feds shouldn’t be allowed to say how individual states manage wildlife. If the reasoning is federal land, doesn’t the state still “own” the wildlife?

If a State says “we’re going to shoot wolves” then any lawsuit should just be thrown out.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
Shaft- when trying to keep endangered from going extinct it takes range wide management including isolated pockets in different states. Image an endangered species like the Indiana bat that ranges several states and crosses state lines. There would be multiple recovery plans trying to achieve the same goal but different priorities. It would be ineffective and chaotic.

By the way, many states already have state listed endangered species. But the federal ESA supersedes the state law as per the Constitution.

16-Jan-21
The transplanted wolf was never endangered. And, the only chaos caused in any of this stocking was the feds. It had nothing to do with science.

From: Grasshopper
16-Jan-21
So in listening to the Colorado commission meeting this week, both sierra club and defenders testified to get wolves on the ground as fast as possible, while at the same time they are suing to which would highly complicate it.

We are living in an insane world.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
WV- you couldn’t be more wrong and absolutely do not know what you are taking about. Have ever even read one page of the gray wolf recovery plan?

It had everything thing to do with biological science of Canis lupus. You are like a misinformation beehive except you make arrogance instead of honey.

From: Jaquomo
16-Jan-21
Canis lupus occidentalis, the McKenzie Valley wolf subspecies that was dumped into Yellowstone, was never, ever endangered. When they were forced into the GYE they were afforded that protection, which was another gross misuse of the ESA for political purposes.

When elk are repatriated into states where they once existed, like Missouri, is that small population declared "endangered" until they reach certain recovery goals? No. Why not?

From: TrapperKayak
16-Jan-21
Jaq is correct. Good example with the elk.

16-Jan-21
KSFlatlander. I've read the Wolf Reintroduction Plan many times. (and been involved with the politics of wolf management for long dang time...) A friend of mine from heree in AK did the helicopter work capturing the BC wolves that were brought to Yellowstone.

If the Plan had been followed, wolves would have been delisted years and years ago. But the meddling of rabid environmental groups and liberal judges resulted in the recovery "goal posts" being moved over and over. There was no actual science that supported those decisions.... unless you count political science.

The ESA was originally a noble and important conservation tool. Any more it is utilized primarily as a political block to development, common sense, human harvest of wildlife and ironically, conservation itself. It needs a huge overhaul... or to be tossed out completely.

Pete

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
You can say it all day long Lou but it was “Canis lupus” that was listed as endangered and it was “Canis lupus” that was reintroduced. That is a simple scientific fact no matter how many times you and others say it.

The “endangered” classification has nothing to do with reintroducing programs for big game. To further your example the eastern elk reintroduction programs are NOT using the same subspecies. The “eastern elk” (Cervus canadensis canadensis) is extirpated (gone) and the eastern reintroduction programs today are using are Rocky Mountain elk subspecies (Cervus canadensis nelsoni). Where is your outrage of that? It is the exact same situation with the gray wolf except elk are not endangered. Why are you not against the elk reintroduction programs in the east while the are “dumping” this different elk subspecies in the east? They are doing the eastern reintroduction programs with the same species (Cervus canadensis)...the North American elk.

Seriously, you are just pushing misinformation like most of your posts. Your subspecies argument doesn’t hold water and your example of eastern elk reintroduction shows your hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

From: TrapperKayak
16-Jan-21
Pete, you are aalso correct in that..all of it. ESA will not get the overhaul it needs now, not with the rabid enviros in power in the new admin. It will get 'strengthened' in the wrong direction. I think it (and NEPA) are going to go down the drain as anything but political gain for the left. ,Both Acts were being loosened the last four years, to minimize red tape. Thats gone now. KS, you might feel less resistance here is you trien harder NOT to be so offensive as to say what you do ...ie, absolutely wro,g, dont know what yohre talki,g about. Thats just plain wrong.

From: Matt
16-Jan-21
"The ESA was originally a noble and important conservation tool. Any more it is utilized primarily as a political block to development, common sense, human harvest of wildlife and ironically, conservation itself. It needs a huge overhaul... or to be tossed out completely."

This

If anything, the wolf introduction into Yellowstone has taught me the environmentalists are not about science or good faith. There was a pre-agreed upon threshold for delsting, and the environmentalists have pushed to move those goal posts ever since the initial threshold was approached. It is about an agenda, and it appears they will say or do whatever they please in order to affect their desired outcome.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
Pete- I really have no disagreement with your post. Agreed that some judges and environmental groups have done more damage than good regarding the ESA. They sue for everything just to stall out the USFWS. Disgraceful IMO. They should leave the ESA management to USFWS biologists.

From: Jaquomo
16-Jan-21
"Seriously, you are just pushing misinformation like most of your posts. Your subspecies argument doesn’t hold water and your example of eastern elk reintroduction shows your hypocrisy"

Uhhhh, nothing that I posted is untrue, or as you liberals like to call facts with which you disagree, "misinformation ". McKenzie Valley Canis lupus are NOT endangered. Never have been. That is a simple scientific fact. They are a different subspecies. That is scientific fact.

I used the elk reintroduction as an example of the hypocrisy of the ESA application. An animal overpopulated in one place does not suddenly become "endangered" because a few are dumped out of a truck into a different location. That's politics at work, not science.

From: Mule Power
16-Jan-21
I wonder how long until they’ll have to reintroduce elk to Yellowstone and a few states.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
The ESA is an American law for conservation of species within the border of the United States. The Mackenzie valley subspecies is not under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. You know that but just forget to mention it. Your argument is spin and misinformation.

Why are not outraged at states dumping the Rocky Mountain elk subspecies in the eastern U.S.? Why haven’t you started a thread about that and push your subspecies argument?

Please tell me the exact scientific name of the gray wolf species that was listed on the ESA?

From: Jaquomo
16-Jan-21
The ESA listing petition deliberately omitted the subspecies designation because to list it would have been admitting USFWS was introducing an animal which was never native to the area. You know that. You also know that it is common practice to list the subspecies in the ESA listings, as with the Mexican gray wolf, Canlis lupus baileyi. By your logic all Canis lupus are the same, which you also know is untrue. Otherwise they could have just unloaded the Canadian wolves and included them under the Mexican wolf protection.

Please stop with the AOC "misinformation" accusations. It makes you seem small. You know everything I posted is true, and you're just trying to spin it. Do you not understand my point about the elk vs. wolves? Neither should be listed as "endangered". But by your logic, western elk transplanted to the east should be ESA listed until they reach recovery goals, just as the Canadian wolves were after being trucked down here.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
Lou- no offense but I don’t think you understand the ESA. The McKenzie Valley subspecies was not listed because it range is NOT in the United States. Even though the SUBSPECIES isn’t in the U.S., it’s is Canis lupus and it’s size, shape, and behavior is nearly identical to the extirpated Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) which once ranged in CO. That is why the choose to use it for reintroduction because the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf is gone/extirpated. By law, they were able to legally introduce the gray wolves from Canada because they are the same SPECIES and it was Canis lupus that was listed.

It is absolutely positively NOT common practice to list subspecies on the ESA. Less than 25% of wildlife are listed under subspecies. Over 75% are listed by species like Canis lupus. Subspecies are listed for many reasons like genetic variation for disease resistance and interbreeding like the Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). This is just more misinformation from you. Just look up all scientific names of listed species and see how many are listed by subspecies.

I’ll stop calling out your misinformation when you stop posting it.

Relocation and reintroduction of game species happens all the time. Just because they are reintroduced does not mean the species is endangered. Your elk example actually is evidence against your point. Most of the game reintroductions (like the eastern elk) are not because the species is on the brink of extinction. It’s because the state wildlife agencies are trying to re-establish a hunt-able population of a native SPECIES (not subspecies). It’s not to save the species.

Why don’t you just say it instead of pushing information. You simply do not want wolves in Colorado regardless of subspecies. Honestly, if USFWS found a previously unknown population of the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) you would be just fine with the reintroducing them to CO?

From: Jaquomo
16-Jan-21
We're going in circles. The McKenzie Valley wolves were never in the U.S. until they were. Then they suddenly became "endangered". So it was much more politically expedient to lump them. I fully understand the ESA and how it is arbitrarily applied to suit political purposes. Canadian wolves weren't forced into GYE to "save the species", as the ESA was intended to facilitate.

Let's stick to facts. The original wolves in Colorado were the youngii subspecies, which was documented to be much smaller than the Canadian wolves. More like coyotes in size. I would be ok with them because they were native, but not crazy about it since Colorado has 6 million people, projected to grow to 10 million soon, and USFWS biologists already determined that the habitat in CO was too fragmented for wolf forcing. That's why they weren't pushed into RMNP to control the elk.

How about this: mammoths and mastodons once roamed Colorado. Why not just truck in some elephants, call them mastodons, afford them ESA protections, and call it "restoring a native species"? Wouldn't that be cool?

From: Glunt@work
16-Jan-21
I wouldn't support reintroducing the same subspecies we had here if they somehow found some. It has almost nothing to do with wolves, its all due to people. I would be a fool to expect reasonable a common sense management once they are established here in numbers. I was naive enough to support it in WY, ID and MT and I learned my lesson.

Based on my admittedly layman's research, I disagree that the introduced wolves are nearly identical in size, shape and behavior as the subspecies that were extirpated here. I also can't see how they can balance justifying the effort and millions spent on the Mexican Wolf (smallest subspecies) as well as keeping it separated from the rest of the Canis Lupus rules and then place the largest subspecies next door. The wolves from the last introduction have traveled a lot farther than the short trip from Colorado to the Mexican Wolf range. Common sense tells me that eventually leads to the disappearance of the lobo subspecies.

From: Mule Power
16-Jan-21
KSFlatlander you cannot be serious comparing elk in the easy who eat grass to wolves who eat everything in sight from wild game to privately owned livestock. Why are you on a hunting website?

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
“The McKenzie Valley wolves were never in the U.S. until they were. Then they suddenly became "endangered".“

Because they are the same SPECIES! They are Canis lupus and Canis lupus is what is listed on the ESA. The ESA protects native species from becoming extinct or extirpated within the border of the U.S.

“How about this: mammoths and mastodons once roamed Colorado. Why not just truck in some elephants, call them mastodons, afford them ESA protections, and call it "restoring a native species"? Wouldn't that be cool?“

Cause they are not the same SPECIES! Good grief Lou.

“ The original wolves in Colorado were the youngii subspecies, which was documented to be much smaller than the Canadian wolves. More like coyotes in size.”

Gray wolf ( McKenzie subspecies; Canis lupus occidentalis)- weight ~85-180lbs.

Gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain subspecies; Canis lupus irremotus)- weight- ~70-150lbs

Gray wolf (Southern Rocky Mountain subspecies; Canis lupus youngi)- weight ~65-150lbs

Coyote (Canis latrans)- weight ~20-50lbs.

WRONG and not factual or even close. Again more misinformation. What planet do you live on the think that wolves that historically inhabited the Rockies are similar size to a coyote. Seriously? Their size doesn’t even overlap.

Lou- I don’t know how else to say this but you are full of it.

Glunt- your post is refreshing and you have your opinion. It’s debatable but refreshing.

Mulepower- I’m here because I’ve been a bowhunter all my life. And I didn’t compare wolves to elk. That was Jaquomo/Lou who brought it up. Read the whole thread and take it up with him.

From: Stix
16-Jan-21
Even if the wolf gets listed again, the forced introduction can continue in Colorado as long as the CPW reintro plan is approved by the USFWS. So while true, it creates extra hurdles in Colorado, they are not insurmountable.

From: TrapperKayak
16-Jan-21
'Honestly, if USFWS found a previously unknown population of the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) you would be just fine with the reintroducing them to CO?' I would, for species sake only, if proven they originally existed there. I absolutely don't support the Canadian larger variety being introduced in any state. I support RM elk intro into eastern states because the eastern ssp is extinct, and they are most likely not going to cause grass and sedge to dissappear.... ;)

From: Jaquomo
16-Jan-21

Jaquomo's embedded Photo
Jaquomo's embedded Photo
Yes, and Mexican wolves are also Canis lupus. So why weren't those reintroduced into Yellowstone if they are all the SAME SPECIES and indistinguishable from each other?

This is from the Smithsonian, comparing skull size of a mature Canadian wolf with a mature youngii.

I would insult you by saying you are full of shit, but I'm better than that. You are too.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21

KSflatlander's Link
Below is a list of average sizes of wolves in Yellowstone.

AVERAGE BODY MASS: males- 110 lbs (50 kg); females-90 lbs (41 kg)

HEAVIEST KNOWN WOLF IN YNP: 148 lbs (wolf 760M of Yellowstone Delta pack with no food in stomach).

Seems like the Gray wolves from Canada reintroduction physiologically adapted quickly to their southern environment. Funny that their size lines up pretty well with Canis lupus youngi. Hmmmm...kind of blows up your argument Lou.

Interesting information on the Yellowstone wolves in the link.

By the way, is it a forgone conclusion that Canada gray wolves would be used for the CO reintroduction (if it happens)? I’ll almost bet they will use Yellowstone wolves or wolves from Idaho or Montana.

You’re right Lou. The insult was uncalled for and unnecessary. Apologies.

From: Jaquomo
16-Jan-21
Ok, the information I received from a biologist that indicated our original wolves were closer in size to large coyotes was incorrect, and there was only around a 10- 15% size difference between them and Canadian wolves. (I admit when I'm wrong, unlike some others on here). That doesnt change the fact that the introduced wolves were never native, which was my point in the beginning. You can lump all you want, but subspecies are subspecies and are used in the ESA designations whenever it is politically expedient.

Colorado biologists have expressed concern about the occidentalis threatening the much smaller Mexican wolves when their territories eventually overlap. But I guess since they are all the same species, that shouldn't matter.

From: Mule Power
16-Jan-21
Dude let’s get something straight! It doesn’t matter what species or sub species it is. What matters is the total mismanagement of them. The abuse of the words endangered species. Organizations who do everything in their power to strip game management authorities of their ability to manage the game. Period. They are anti hunters. And some of them probably don’t actually care one way or another about hunting but are in it for the huge profits. They get money from anti hunters and naive animal lovers. People like you who are amazingly blind to the facts and run around campaigning their agenda for them. Probably passing it down to your poor kids too. Makes me cringe.

From: paul@thefort
16-Jan-21
Lou, as you know, the Rock Mt Wolf Project and 16 other pro wolf organizations, do not care if the Northern wolf interacts with the AZ wolf. They stated, the breeding of the two subspecies will only strengthen the gene pool of the AZ wolf and do not care about the separate gene factor of the AZ wolf. There main goal is to bring back the wolf to its Historic Range regardless of the need.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
Mulepower- your post says a lot about you. My children grew up hunting and value wildlife and the ecosystem they inhabit. The only agenda I have is conservation personally and professionally.

From: jjs
16-Jan-21
Been hunting in wolf area for a while, when the Canadian pack cross over to the Mn border they are just wolves and the Balance is eschewed. The key word is Balance and once that is brought back in line then some normalcy will occur.

The difference between the Manitoba/ Ontario wolves and the Mn. wolves, the wolves in Canada gets hunted and fear humans not in Mn., Wi. or the UP of Mi., had them within 5 yrds just starring before ambling on, at least yotes will dede mao when getting a whiff of humans.

16-Jan-21
Sorry KSflatlander. The lies and lack of management with regard to wolves in Wisconsin has eroded all credibility. By their own estimates, the number of wolves in Wisconsin is roughly four times their target population that they pitched.

And there’s still plenty of evidence to suggest that their new estimates are a fraction of reality.

So to anyone in Colorado... Don’t believe a word that they say. The science doesn’t matter. Math doesn’t matter. Semantics, definitions, agreements and management plans don’t matter.

Do whatever you can to stave these people off. Organize. Raise money. Lobby. Utilize their tactics. Generate emotional appeals.

But don’t let them in your house. Look at them and their pitch the same way you do the email from the Nigerian Prince wanting to deposit money in your bank account.

Or, perhaps a better analogy... Ask the guys in Wisconsin...

When they promise to only put the tip in, you’re going to get fully screwed.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-21
I never advocated for anything on this thread. I simply was calling out misinformation. I think the “moving the goalposts” argument is legit. That is what I meant by the environmental organizations doing net harm with their lawsuits.

From: paul@thefort
16-Jan-21
Washington state newspaper Staff and wire reports A coalition of wildlife conservation groups Thursday notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its intent to file a lawsuit challenging the recent decision to strip gray wolves of Endangered Species Act protection across nearly all the lower 48 states.

The challenged delisting rule, which becomes effective Jan. 4, will permit trophy hunting and trapping of wolves again in the Great Lakes states. Delisting will slow or completely halt recovery of wolves in most of their former range. The new rule excludes Mexican gray wolves, which are listed separately under the Endangered Species Act.

“The Trump administration shut the door to wolf recovery, even as the science shows that wolves are too imperiled and ecologically important to abandon,” said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re taking the fight to the courts, and I’m confident we can restore the Endangered Species Act’s lifesaving protections for gray wolves across the nation.”

“The decision to remove critical protections for still-recovering gray wolves is dangerously short-sighted, especially in the face of an extinction and biodiversity crisis,” said Bonnie Rice, senior representative for Sierra Club’s Our Wild America Campaign. “We should be putting more effort into coexistence with wolves and reinstating endangered species protections critical for their full recovery.”

Thursday’s notice letter states removal of the gray wolf’s federal protection is unlawful because the species has not recovered in the Pacific Northwest, the southern Rockies and elsewhere that scientists identify as “significant” habitat for the wolf.

The notice letter also asserts that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision contradicts the most current science regarding wolf conservation and taxonomy and ignores concerns raised in peer reviews by the nation’s top wolf scientists.

“It’s perverse to declare wolves fully recovered when they exist in only a fraction of their historic range,” Adkins said. “I’m hopeful that the court will set things right, but in the meantime hundreds of wolves will die, and it will take years to undo the damage done. It’s heartbreaking and senseless.”

Six conservation groups represented by Earthjustice – the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Oregon Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association and the Humane Society of the United States – sent the notice letter.

The Endangered Species Act requires that the coalition now wait 60 days before filing its lawsuit with the court.

From: Huntcell
16-Jan-21
“but in the meantime hundreds of wolves will die, “

These people need to redirect their time and resources to higher cause. Wolfs are continually expanding on their own. Help the Christians in muslim countries and china. And help the poor & young in Africa. There are some worthwhile causes , not weeping about a few wolfs.

From: steve
16-Jan-21
What really pisses me off more than any thing listed above is the the MT FWP expects me to PAY THEM, ie wolf tags to help manage a scourge that I and most all sportsman and ranches didn't want in the first place. Do I have moron branded across my head, not gonna happen. There is a ranch in the Big Hole Valley, [147,000 acres, not a misprint] that is a sportsmans dream, used to be open to the public for hunting. Due to predation on the ranch livestock of confirmed wolf kills, and the inaction by the FWP and USFWS to do anything to stem the problem the ranch has been forever closed to the public. Sad day for sportsman good day for the meadow muffins .

16-Jan-21
Huntcell for the win.

From: paul@thefort
17-Jan-21
was there a reason the pro-wolfers filed their law suit in Washington state? Was it filed in a lower court and then can be appealed to a higher court if needed? I see that the US 9th Circuit count is now more conservative than before per the Trump administration.

From: TEmbry
17-Jan-21
KS, If being native to the USA is the criteria for being afforded protections under the ESA (your point about the McKenzie valley wolves) then why are African lions on the list?

From: KSflatlander
17-Jan-21
It was largely ceremonial is my understanding. It did give USFWS law enforcement more teeth with illegal importation. But your point is valid. I was wrong when I said they couldn’t be listed. However, technically the McKenzie Valley subspecies is listed since “Canis lupus” is under the ESA which includes all gray wolves. All subspecies are Canis lupus.

If you all really want an argument that helps you and is hypocritical of the ESA...what about the American bison? Why isn’t the USFWS reintroducing them all over Kansas and the Great Plains? Why isn’t it on the ESA? Same for the prairie dog. No good response.

With gray wolves, some want to talk about the subspecies like they are separate species. They are not. No getting around that. Mexican wolves are an ESA listed subspecies...true. They are listed that way to protect genetic variation in the species and because they are managed differently and have different recovery goals.

From: TEmbry
17-Jan-21
I don’t view it as one sided. I think there was valid arguments and reasons for Wolf reintroduction. The plan clearly worked and the time has long since passed to remove the restrictions and allow states to manage their own Wolf populations as they do with nearly all other species. It’s undermining the ESA and making a mockery of the entire programs huge successes over the years by politicizing it for one species who clearly met objectives.

From: Mule Power
17-Jan-21
Because bison don’t help eliminate hunting. Next question?

From: paul@thefort
17-Jan-21
The prowolf organizations have no intent to "protect genetic variations" in the Mexican wolfes. By reintroducing the northern gray wolf into Colorado, and then allowing it to travel farther south into the Mexican wolf habitat, they believe and have stated, this with only strengthen both wolf populations. So "genetic variations" be dammed. The States, the Department of Interior (USFWS) and the Forest Service will be sued many times over all aspects of any state/federal plan as there will never be enough wolves in enough places to satisfy the Pro wolf organizations. These actions will continue to cost millions of dollars and the cost of wolf reintroduction will be 100s of thousands of dollars per wolf. It was estimated that the reintroduction of the wolf in to the Greater Yellowstone and Idaho areas ended up costing $500,000 - 1 million per wolf over the long term since 1994 when reintroduced. Currently there are law suits against the US Forest Service concerning the killing of problem wolves in Washington. Those that voted YES in Colorado have no idea what the State, the CPW, the USFWS, and the US Forest Service will have to deal with once the wolf numbers increase over time and I will predict there will be over 200 wolves or more, in Colorado. The live stock producers will be affected as will the average Joe who has a few horses, pets, and elk and moose will be highly targeted by the wolves once they get established over time. Interesting that during this whole Colorado Ballot Initiative process, the Pro wolfers never mentioned who was going to pay for all of this, and if it was mentioned some, "OH the state will do it with the help of the Feds.." And all the pro wolfer could produce was, "once established in Colorado the gray wolf will bring back the critical balance to nature and the ecosystem", Oh really! That statement sure sold a bunch of Yes voters.

18-Jan-21
What’s gonna happen when those CO Canadians move down here to NM and breed the Mexican Greys.

From: trublucolo
18-Jan-21
Unicorns......, but seriously, we'll send New Mexico a bill for our superior wolves breeding genes, since no one in our state government has explained how they're going to be managed or how it's going to be funded beyond the glorious reintroduction celebration. New Mexico, along with Utah doesn't get a vote since you didn't support Guv'nah Polis in his election, and according to Denver and Boulder residents, anybody outside those boundaries doesn't know squat about wildlife mismanagement anyhow......

  • Sitka Gear