Klobuchar Pushes For Bill To Lift Protections For Wolves

[Autumn]

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Senators from three states have introduced legislation to lift federal protections for gray wolves in Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and return responsibility for managing those populations to the states.

The bill introduced Tuesday comes from senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, John Barrasso and Enzi of Wyoming, and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.


?


The Interior Department has tried several times to take wolves in the four states off the endangered list but has been blocked by the courts. Both the Senate bill and one introduced in the House last week would prevent the courts from overruling the decision.

Similar proposals stalled out last year, partly due to White House opposition. But farm and rancher groups and other wolf hunting supporters hope that changes under the Trump administration.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/01/17/gray-wolf-bill/?fbclid=IwAR3aOQNCQuWVBhmXmFE38V57GoznrK9A15B7zxfz0b-dWgjaPlHfmJ9FEws

[squirecam]

1. Article was from 2017

Sanders supporters lashing out. Reeks of desperation.

[MontanaFarmer]

2. Agreed. Besides, i agree with them.

Wolves are necessary on the landscape, but they're completely devastating if left unchecked with no natural predator. If we're going to follow the north American model of wildlife managment on game species we need to follow it on predators or things will get out of balance quickly.

[Beringia]

8. What study has shown wolves devastate any population?

I heard in Canada, they have killed many wolves because they wanted to revive a population decline in some caribou herd that was mainly declining because of loss of habitat. But I haven't heard that wolves decimate any populations of deer or elk or other animal in US.

Wolves establish families and those families defend territories. Hunting them breaks up family cohesion and stability.

[MontanaFarmer]

22. The greater Yellowstone elk herd was cut from 20,000 to

4,000 animals following the reintroduction of wolves. It needed to be cut down some but it was decimated. It's rebounded since, especially since Montana and Idaho started hunting wolves around the perimeter. Wolves, elk, deer etc would regulate fine if there were zero human considerations, but that's not realistic. Livestock depredations are now commonplace, due both to wolves and grizzly bear populations that are far beyond recovery targets in the NCD ecosystem. I'm not advocating eliminating these species, but to just let them grow unchecked can't be our policy either.

[Hortensis]

23. I was hoping people who live this situation would step in.

Thanks, MontanaFarmer.

Beringia, by definition, when people like Klobuchar do something like this, there're always valid reasons. If she wanted to serve Big Money, she'd be a Republican.

[MontanaFarmer]

26. Agreed. There's no "big money"

being served on the producer end of animal agriculture these days, believe me. And again, as both a farmer and an outdoors enthusiast, I believe we need wolves on the landscape to help achieve balance in wildlife, manage CWD to the extent it can be managed, etc. But again, if you allow a species with no natural predator in a given ecosystem to grow in population in a runaway fashion, that animal will reduce the prey population, and it'll be forced to greatly expand its territory. We've now got both wolves and Grizzlies on the plains of northern Montana, which was NEVER a stated goal or objective in the recovery of either species.

[Hortensis]

28. +1000. We lived out west, and if I'd ever even seen a grizzly while

out camping, even in the distance, we'd never have returned to that area. The brown bears here in the SE are teddy bears in comparison, timid and curious. One accompanies a friend on her morning walks in a wilderness area, but always at a bit of a cautious distance because he worries about being eaten.

[Turin_C3PO]

37. It's mostly

Republicans who try to lift protections on wolves. Klobuchar and Baldwin are joining them. I’m sure they believe what they’re saying and no, they’re not working for Big Money but they’re still dead wrong on this issue, IMO.

[Hortensis]

44. Wildlife managers would not have to apply to federal

legislators for assistance if existing federal laws had not become obstacles to good management.

[Beringia]

91. It's hunters and yes big money

Like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I wonder if they donate to her.

[Turin_C3PO]

34. Ranchers here in NM

complain about wolves also and it’s bullshit. Most of them are Republicans who are leaching off the public land and are looking for reasons to kill wolves.

[Bayard]

49. Agreed

The same ranchers that want to kill off mustangs because they are grazing on, "their" land.

I'm not buying that wolves are killing tons of livestock either. If they take the occasional sheep, I consider it small payment for invading their habitat. My blood totally boils when I see video or read about imbeciles that place bait just outside a protected area, and when the wolf crosses over, they blast them.

I would like to know the Senator's position now as well. I'm with the wolves. Flame away!

[Doreen]

80. If they would open their

eyes they would see the larger problem is poachers.

Wolves do not overkill or kill for fun and they go for the weak to help nature keep species strong.

Once again people making decisions without doing in depth studies.

[MontanaFarmer]

58. Yes, what would a rancher know about the animals

killing their livestock? We have 900 wolves in Montana, and were told at the beginning of recovery that the target was 30 breeding pairs and 100 wolves. A great success, and now the state has begun to manage the population accordingly. Why is that a problem?

[kcr]

87. It would help if ranchers would actually cite some data

You haven't, for instance. Cute head bashing emojis don't cut it.

[MontanaFarmer]

88. Grizzly:

https://www.northernag.net/first-grizzlies-in-the-sweet-grass-hills-kill-13-sheep/ that was a lone bear nearly 100 miles from the northern continental divide ecosystem

Minnesota estimates over 100 cattle per year killed, while only confirming 35-45

It happens. It's not decimating cow herds, and again I'm not advocating for their removal, extermination, etc as some do, I'm simply saying keep their population within pre determined objectives like we do with the wild species wolves prey on.

[Hortensis]

96. "We have 900 wolves in Montana."

[Beringia]

92. Wolves have a neglible impact on cows

Cow grazing is allowed on federal lands, and wolves are killed when in their own space. People are not accepting of that.

[2naSalit]

39. I call BS, all caps, underlined!!!

You obviously have little to no knowledge of how wolves in an ecosystem function, or predators in general for that matter.

Where to start?

I live in the middle of wolf and grizzly habitat and I challenge you to cite any refereed documents which show how wolves decimate herds or need to be kept in check. I'll give you some time to try too.

Wolves are a keystone species, they are necessary for an ecosystem to thrive as all other extant species in that ecosystem benefit from their presence and lifestyle. The stories you hear about elk populations in YNP are bogus beyond belief and are so old they have a twenty-something year old rind on them and I have spent decades debunking them, so much so that I have had to relocate more than once for my safety from wolf haters who would harm me for telling the truth.

SO I get a little miffed when I see/hear this old trope wheeled out for the umpteenth time.

Wolves, as decades of study have shown, are self regulating in that they control their numbers based on food availability within their established home range. And a wild wolf's live span is an average of 6 years.

The truth about the YNP elk herds is that they were so numerous that they were a detriment to the ecosytem because there was no predator pressure to make them act like they are supposed to act... like the roving ungulate that they are rather than like cows on the range. All the river valleys were turned to golf courses, all grass and no trees. due to 70+ years of no wolves in the region. Now they have reached stasis, it takes time, and after twenty years the BALANCE of species has come around and there is the appropriate number of elk on the range as the environment can support without going into negative trophic cascade effects.

And as far as the grizzly bears... I don't know where you get your info but it is pretty far out in the weeds.

The grizzly bear population is not only doing far better due to the wolves on the landscape, they are migrating out of the parks and back into their natural habitat. Too bad humans are there, learn to live with it, it's nature.

There is a wonderful boom in the grizzly population. Why? Because they learned rather quickly after the wolves' return to YNP that they can follow a hunting party of wolves, let them do all the work of taking down the prey and then chasing off the wolves and keeping the carcass, sometimes they'll even share.

I don't know where you get the idea that wolves need culling, it's people who need to stop taking over their habitat and playing gawd with nature.

If we would control ourselves, the natural world wouldn't be such a problem for so many.

[defacto7]

43. This is the fact!

I couldn't have possibly said it better.

[2naSalit]

45. As I said...

Been in that fight, right up to the death threats and relocation, for decades. As a lobbyist, I've spent hours making enemies of politicians who have no clue about nature... and I'm not talking raising cows or corn or potatoes which forces one to regard the weather, that's not a clue about nature.

[Bayard]

51. Hear, Hear!!

Agree totally, and commend your fight!

[MontanaFarmer]

53. As i said, you can't remove humans from the equation.

You're not removing big game hunting from the equation. You may want to, but you can't, so that's a bogus point. As for Grizzlies returning to the plains, again, you can't undo 220 years of human civilization, so the alternative is to manage them to the levels defined in the recovery plan. Nobody wants human/grizzly conflicts. If you venture into their ecosystem, "live with it," as you say, but i will not live with it in a place where they haven't lived for a couple centuries. Not to mention, again, that we're far beyond recovery targets for both species. No reason to continue to call them "endangered," or "threatened," as they're clearly not. As you state, wolves self- regulate, and one of the ways they do so is by spreading over a larger area. Same with Grizzlies. Again, not advocating wiping them out, but you can't seriously be saying we need them in all their pre-settlement native habitat? That's a pipe dream on the order of the buffalo commons.

[2naSalit]

60. Quite a few assumptions there...

Hunting is not needed and "spreading out" as you mention is not what you imagine. Where there's food for wolves, that's where they will be. Kind of like mushrooms, they are where they are.

Species-centric mindset is not good for any living thing on the planet. So far, we humans have proven - even to ourselves now, that WE are the problem. As long as we are hell bent on trying to prove that we can have comfort and enjoy superiority over all other life forms, we will be slamming our heads against the wall.

Not trying to remove humans from the equation but I am advocating for a vast reduction in ignorance of that which makes it possible for us to survive. This subject is a great place to start.

As the wolves taught the Native American Indians about social and family structure and norms, this is a good time for humans to learn a little more about how life actually works from them now.

[MontanaFarmer]

63. You're at least partially making my point.

There's a food source, and often a very easy food source, scattered across the entirety of the native range of wolves and grizzly bears both. They can't any longer follow the bison herds; when they leave the mountains they're often going to be eating someone's sheep or cow. And they are leaving the mountains, because they've recovered to the point there's not enough to eat for the numbers that there are. So they're coming back, onto the plains, and the feed sources they find are causing conflict with humans. So unless you're truly going to eliminate animal agriculture (and the only real use for a vast chunk of real estate), here we are with the current situation and the management problems it's created.

[2naSalit]

67. To follow that logic...

We humans have far exceeded the carrying capacity for the PLANET and we need to control our numbers since there are far too many to handle all the needs for humans on every inch of the planet. Maybe we need some kind of culling like reduced birth numbers, trashing fewer resources and actually finding value in the simple things that make our lives possible in the first place.

See, we are like cockroaches, we seem to be able to adapt to life nearly everywhere on the planet. What makes us worse is that we are putting all other species at a disadvantage for survival as we take control of their survival needs and make choices for their extinction based on our comfort.

That's the reason we developed the Endangered Species Act in the first place, way back in the early 1970s.

[MontanaFarmer]

69. Sounds reasonable.

Much more reasonable than trying to find a solution for landowners, sportsmen, and wildlife advocates to all get something they want.

[MontanaFarmer]

59. Is it your contention

that no matter how many wolves are in a given ecosystem, a given area, a state, etc, that the deer and elk populations will never be adversely affected? 900 wolves and counting, and not evenly distributed, in Montana. How many would be enough?

[2naSalit]

66. By the wolves, that is my claim

backed up by about forty pages of academic citations. It is other elements that will decimate herds. If a pack of wolves or even a couple in an area kill off all the elk, I mean all of them, what would you think would be the main cause?

Could it be disease that humans had not detected, like oh, CWD? But if the wolves killed a diseased herd they would first be considered dangerous and an outrage would ensue because the wolves killed an entire herd! OMG! But after some necropsies of the elk finding the CWD exonerates the wolves there would be five minutes of tisking because "managers" killed off the pack(s) because they killed off the diseased herd which would save a lot of taxpayer $$ if they had waited to see what was really happening.

Most of wolf management goes like that. A farmer/rancher finds one of his cows is dead and there are bite marks on the carcass. Well, according to the livestock producer, it was a wolf and they all have to get killed, better yet, let him go and and kill them so he'll be more accepting of wolves. That's the logic that has been at play all this time, five decades that I have seen myself (that's only how long I've been active as an advocate), and it's ignorant and inconsiderate of our own fate as we continue to wantonly destroy the biosphere.

How are you gonna spend the next and probably last ten years of air that we have left in the tank?

[MontanaFarmer]

68. You're correct of course, wolves won't kill everything in an area.

They'll balance the population, they'll procreate, and eventually split off into another pack in another location. Repeat, repeat, repeat, until they're out of room in the deep wild, then into civilization. So in this conversation so far I've heard that we should live with wolves and Grizzlies occupying all their native range, and that nobody needs to hunt. And then we wonder why those damn yokels in the middle of the country keep voting against us. Shucks, must be the messaging, or the messenger, can't be the message.

[coti]

70. By the picture you paint, it's a wonder the wolves didn't take over the world before people with

guns came along. I don't think your sense of the ecosystem is realistic. Populations of predators and prey both fluctuate up and down and are balanced by a number of factors, and by each other. Though you're right that animals do spread out to where the ecosystem can support them (at least for a time).

Humans, as a factor, have a serious tendency to go WAYYY overboard in their "balancing" of animal populations. We should be trying to limit our impact on wild areas to something minimal, we can't seem to help ourselves but do damage.

[MontanaFarmer]

73. There was far more territory available then.

That's not good, bad, or indifferent, it's a fact. There will never be thousands of bison on the great plains again. Using any example pre human settlement is not beneficial to the argument, because humans are here! Like or not, we are. We should manage our wildlife, all of it, accordingly. That's all I'm saying. Again, we need wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc on the landscape. We shoot deer. We shoot elk. We shoot a few moose. That is not changing whether we want it to or not. We should do ther same with wolves. Hell have the state wildlife agencies do targeted removals if you like, I have no interest I'm hunting a wolf or a bear. None. But i have an interest in abundant wild game and peaceably raising my livestock.

[2naSalit]

71. The point you are missing

and I guess i didn't stress enough, is that wolves will control their numbers. They only establish a range and a pack for that matter, when there is ample food of choice, which is not livestock or children or foolish adults and they are unlikely to inhabit urban/suburban locations like coyotes are doing. They have a more specific diet and habitat needs. No, they don't just keep spreading like ooblek until they are everywhere. That's nonsense, but I get, it sells lots of radio and wannabe newscasts and riles up the haters.

Not everything is as cut and dried as you like to speculate, there are differences in regions and there are many factors but the ones you emphasize are the most unlikely and ;east believable for those who actually know something about it. My work with public land and wildlife management policy certainly showed me a lot more than most will ever see or understand but the lack of knowledge that I see in places like this is disappointing at best.

Any explanations in posts like this are where I can only hit so many points of correction in one sitting so don't expect a college seminar worth of info during this interaction. You either get it or will when forced to... when mother nature gives we planet lice the boot.

[MontanaFarmer]

72. Ok, I'll take your word for it.

Oh wait, i have grizzly bears and wolves where they were never intended to be, per your public wildlife management experts you tout. This is what's actually happening, not what you think should happen. There's wolves halfway to the ND border in Montana. Grizzlies 40 miles behind. Show me where that was ever the intended result of any recovery plan, by any wildlife biologist anywhere.

[2naSalit]

74. So YNP is supposed to be a zoo? Wonder why

there aren't any fences?

What I'd rather you do is educate yourself before posting misinformation. Maybe start with the ESA, it's only 45 pages if you spread it out double spaced.

The point of reintroducing the wolves was so that they could grow in population and thrive as a species in whatever portions of habitat may still support them. That has always been the intent. OMG, wolves almost inhabiting locations from MT to SD!! And Bears!! OMG! Whatever will those little girls out waiting for the school bus in the dark at 4am do to keep from being eaten?

Give me a break. Have a nice life in your fog, only adhering to bogus alarmist nonsense... it's your life. Just don't kill my wildlife unless you're gonna eat it all, okay?

I'm not getting paid to argue with you so your free 15 minutes that I'll never get back are up,

C-ya!

[ChubbyStar]

75. Best post of the WEEK!

Thank you, I am so impressed, and your composure is to be admired.

[2naSalit]

77. Thanks...

I've had a little practice. I wear as badges of honor the hatred of many a politician and former Cabinet members after arguing with them and pointing out their willful ignorance. You have to be tactful if you want to finish your statement without getting tossed by security.

[ChubbyStar]

79. You are an amazing human creature

I cried when I read this thread, but pumped my fist in the air you for, and all the creatures we need to protect.

[MontanaFarmer]

76. Later. Never said they should stay in the park.

Said they've recovered to the point they're encroaching on territory their recovery plans, written by the very wildlife professionals you praise, never intended them to return to. The American plains won't support them any longer. They just won't. They won't support elk any more either, at least not on any kind of large scale. It's ag country now. That's the whole point of the discussion. People aren't leaving, and wildlife has to fit into the equation, not be managed like they're the only part of it.

[2naSalit]

78. Hmmm

I don't praise anyone but carry on with your fantasy.

The only encroachment is humans upon wildlife habitat. Wildlife don't encroach.

Interesting reinterpretation of your own argument, but not anything I haven't heard a thousand times by those who don't like to find out all the facts.

[MontanaFarmer]

84. Evidently those tasked with wildlife management

in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming etc. see it differently than you, because there's currently a wolf season in at least 2 of those states and pending grizzly seasons in at least 2 as well. They've decided we've crossed population thresholds that will make these species' relationship with the broader world untenable. That's not my opinion, that's the recommendation of wildlife experts in their given states. Humans HAVE encroached! Of course we have! Practically, no policy can change that and it's going to get worse before it gets better. I'm interested in a healthy population of farmers, wild game, and predators all. There simply has to be a middle ground between "kill em all!" and "don't shoot any of the pretty wolves and bears." Has to be. That's all I'm saying in my position.

[Autumn]

86. I hunted often when I was younger, I'm all for hunting. But not for trophys and if you don't eat

it you don't need to be shooting it. I've never heard of wolf meat being on anyone's menu.

[Doreen]

81. Well said.

[Beringia]

93. Thanks for your wisdom and expertise 2naSalit

[Beringia]

90. You even contradict yourself

"they're completely devastating if left unchecked"

"As you state, wolves self-regulate"

[MontanaFarmer]

95. Their means of self-regulating

Is to expand their territory. The whole point I'm trying to make from an agricultural and wildlife management perspective. Correct, they'll never eat themselves to starvation in a given area, but as the population rises that area increases, leading to the potential for conflict. Hence, Montana's wildlife managers decided to allow some hunting to keep the population in check. It's working in certain areas better than others, but overall it's working. Grizzly bears will be the next challenge. My only point has been we can't act like the human element, whether that's sportsmen, agriculture, or the urban- wildland interface, isn't part of the equation, because it is. It will continue to be. And acting like that's not the case, or that we should just step out of the way, isn't realistic.

[coti]

10. We "predated" the wolves already until they were absolutely destroyed and we had to

go to Alaska to bring some back.

[2naSalit]

48. +1

The only ones we had then were on an island in Lake Superior, they used to inhabit 80%+ of the continental US until Europeans came along.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I am very sorry and disappointed to read this.

It is so much not the right move at all. Wolves have a place, an important place, in our ecosystems.

This stance by Klobuchar places her beyond my reach completely, unless she becomes our nominee. And only then would I vote for her.

[squirecam]

4. Sorry

That a two year old article on a local issue causes you that much concern.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Do you know if Amy's attitudes on this have changed?

If they haven't, then the date on this article doesn't matter.

[MBS]

36. right you are. n/t

[2naSalit]

50. That's right!

And until I hear that she has had a change of heart on this particular issue, she won't get my consideration or my vote in the primaries.

[Autumn]

15. You support Amy. Do you know where she currently stands on wolves?

[squirecam]

16. If you think

Amy’s position on wolves, which is actually moot since the senate hasn’t passed and won’t pass the bill, is the hill to die on then so be it.

To me, this reeks of “find anything to slam Amy on” by desperate Sanders supporters. Which is why the Biden abortion posts are trending today.

The country has far greater concerns.

[Autumn]

18. think any politicians stand is relevant, as are their votes and bills, past and present. I'm not

planning on picking any hill to die on. I take it you don't know what her current stand on wolves happens to be?

[squirecam]

19. Bernie liked rape fantasies in 1972

That’s his past.

Not the hill I’d die on when trump is in office. But you be you.

[Autumn]

20. He wrote an article about it but I wouldn't presume to know what he likes. I'll continue being

myself without your permission thank you very much. By the way, welcome... to DU.

[squirecam]

21. I

Welcome the day Bernie loses the primary fight. I’ve also been here for over a decade. So you can stop with the stupid insults.

[Autumn]

25. Went by your post count. Oops,my bad. The 331 posts with all of them but 62 being posted in

the last three months threw me off. If you don't want to be insulted please don't presume to give permission to people to be themselves. I consider that to be insulting.

[ChubbyStar]

56. Boom!

Thank you!

[squirecam]

85. The # of posts means nothing

Some post hundreds per day. Some don’t.

[rzemanfl]

46. Bookmarking. Now I will wash socks. n/t

[Autumn]

7. I'm sorry Peggy. Wolves will make the ballot here in CO and this article was on a link

on a local piece I was reading and I found this article on Klobuchar . The article in the OP is two years old and I didn't notice the date so I will self delete the OP. It's sad that so many people want them dead.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. If I were you, I would not delete this post. People need to know.

And I do want to know if her attitudes have changed.

[Autumn]

12. I was surprised to see Tammy Baldwin was backing the bill too. I'll leave it up a bit, someone may

know.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Oh, that is a shame.

Yes, please leave it up!

Thanks.

[Mr.Bill]

5. Given the state of our federal government at that time

anything that took control from the feds and gave it to the states would have been a good move.

[2naSalit]

54. Not that subject, however

The states are the ones who will remove them completely if given half a chance. I give you Idaho as an example.

[Mr.Bill]

57. Right now I would trust any state government over the Trump administration.

Maybe I'm spoiled because I live in California.

[2naSalit]

61. I'll be kind...

you live in California...
Over here, in the Rockies, there's a great wave of uber religious influence and lack of public funding education shortfalls, the rest is history.

[Beringia]

11. She would like to let the hunters have their way

Very bad in my estimation.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

14. I agree completely! n/t

[Hortensis]

40. Beringia, overpopulation of animals is deadly for the animals.

They starve and become diseased. They suffer. And when they can, they spread in desperation into inhabited areas, where many demand government protect them by any means necessary to stop and make sure it won't happen again.

It's all about maintaining a healthy and sustainable balance when Mother Nature isn't able to. Wildlife managers devote their lives to maintaining healthy balances, and one of the ways they do that is to ask those caring and responsible legislators they work with for help when needed.

Senator Klobuchar's one of those.

[Turin_C3PO]

41. Show me evidence

of wolves decimating populations of animals. It’s a common right wing talking point. Not saying you’re right wing but I am saying that all the anti-wolf propaganda I hear around here is from Republican ranchers.

[Autumn]

62. Same here in CO.

[Beringia]

89. Wildlife is managed enough to give hunters what they want

and not have the animals go extinct. If deer or elk are overpopulated, then wolves and cougars should be welcomed, but you have people arguing they kill all the elks. Hunters don't like predators period. Deer populations are often deliberately let to overpopulate so hunters can hunt them. They could only kill does, but they sell tags for the bucks.

If you think wildlife is managed by people who only care about wildlife, try going to a Dept of Fish and Wildlife meeting in a rural area. It is 100% hunters.

[2naSalit]

55. Super Duper stupid IMHO....nt

[myohmy2]

17. "Klobuchar Pushes For Bill To Lift Protections For Wolves"

...curious...

...I'm wonder what else needs their protections lifted so they can be needlessly slaughtered?

...

[2naSalit]

30. Right?

[Mr.Bill]

64. White Supremacists?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

24. This 4 minute video explains why I support protections on wolves:

[Freethinker65]

27. Working for interests of her constituents in her state. Bravo

[Turin_C3PO]

31. Sometimes

someone’s constituents can be dead wrong on issues. This is one of those times. I’m disappointed in Klobuchar and Baldwin.

[dflprincess]

82. Pandering to people in northern Minnesota

It's also why she has not taken firm positions on mining near the Boudary Waters & the Enbridge Pipeline.

[2naSalit]

29. WTF is the matter with her?!?

[Baked Potato]

32. I trust Senator Klobuchar on the issue.

It’s an issue in her neck-o-the-woods, so she knows best.

[Autumn]

38. The problem is wolves don't just live in her neck- o -the woods. The Trump administration

has sought to take Gray Wolves off the Endangered Species list.

[Baked Potato]

42. Understood, it looks to me like her main concern was

to make the law so the individual states can manage their own wolf populations. And that entails lifting the ban.

[defacto7]

47. Ah yes and those wolves have political maps I guess.

[Autumn]

65. And the minute they come to a state line they stop and turn back. NOT.

Washington wolf killed in Montana had traveled 700 miles

A wandering wolf traveled nearly 700 miles through three states and one Canadian province before being shot and killed near Judith Gap last month for preying on sheep.

Washington Fish and Wildlife biologists collared the 2-year-old male wolf in February north of Spokane. Last June they tracked the animal as it left the Huckleberry Pack's territory, turning east into Idaho and north into Canada.

“Dispersal is a necessary and a very risky component of wolf population dynamics,” said Ty Smucker, wolf specialist with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “As young wolves mature they typically disperse from their natal pack in search of potential mates and vacant territories in which to start their own packs.”

On the Fourth of July the wolf reentered the United States near Eureka, Montana, and headed southeast. In late July he emerged on the Rocky Mountain Front, staying in the area until September when he headed east, traveling west of Great Falls and north of the Little Belt Mountains.

https://helenair.com/news/natural-resources/washington-wolf-killed-in-montana-had-traveled-miles/article_4f47985a-d69e-5e9a-aa5d-d188dc8341c0.html

[2naSalit]

94. In reality, only NOAA or USFWS have the power

to make that determination along with multiple events of public comment. They are trying to cut US out of the process and they also want to kill the ESA.

[Turin_C3PO]

33. Disappointing.

Of course I’ll enthusiastically support her if she wins the primary but this has moved her down on my list.

[ismnotwasm]

35. This is an interesting topic

It seems that the main argument isn’t so much taking them off the endangered species list as it is selective hunting vs sports hunting to manage populations; there is no longer enough territory for wolves, so they kill ranchers animals or even pets.

Wolves are smart.

One of my SILs is a master hunter, and a sustenance hunter. We had a situation with a type of invasive mountain goat on the Olympic peninsula. He thought selective hunting using master hunters and donate the meat was a better solution than what we did, we moved the animals to another area.

That’s not an option for wolves. Like I said they are smart. I’d rather see them well managed than reach the point where they are hunted for sport. First Nation tribes would rather selective hunting.

It’s all just very sad

[Kurt V.]

52. this thread was really informative

[judeling]

83. Lone Wolf

This is not a straight forward yes or no good or bad situation.
Both Wisconsin and Minnesota lead the effort at the recovery of the Grey Wolf long before the Federal government got involved.

Both are only asking to manage the human wild interface and it that it really isn't pack behavior but the lone wolf that has been rejected that causes the biggest problems. In the wild these individuals would have a difficult time because the normal hunting activity is a group effort. However there is now a domesticated source of food that is easy, so these individuals have a much better chance. A source of food trained to interface with canines. For genetic diversity and the health of the species these lone wolves need to be accepted by other packs and sex and food are the main impetus. But a ready source of food distorts this movement.

While it may seem brutal the act of hunting if controlled correctly is a counter balance to this. Just as deer hunting keeps the population healthy when an abundance of cultivated crops distorts nature.