Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

It appears that a wolf killing 9 lambs near Big Timber merits an attempt to kill it, while a calf killed by wolves near Eureka (The original story headline was "Calf kills wolf near Eureka." I'm sure this has been corrected by now though thinking about it, it would be nice if calves did kill wolves, would solve a lot of problems in the area.), doesn't. I find this interesting. I think one calf is as important as nine sheep but I am a little prejudiced that way, so shoot me. Hopefully both problems will be resolved with the judicious use of firepower.

Surely, serious problems can't be solved just by talking about them. Nigel Short

I'm afraid I am going to have to take a little different viewpoint than most ranchers on this subject. Why should we spend money on getting the wolf delisted when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has all ready announced that it has planned on doing it? Admittedly it is still in the comment period and they could decide different when all is said and done, but why not wait and see what they decide.

Maybe the bill should appropriate the money if and only if the FWS decides not to delist the wolf after they close the comment period. That will give the process time to work without having to resort to getting the courts involved. Its much easier and logical. It might take a while for the delisting process to work but a court case is no faster. In this case either way the wheels turn slow and there is no hurrying. Patience is the key.

The next question in the whole debate is whether state control of the wolves will be any better. How will state managers balance the needs of the wolves with the needs of the landowners and animals involved. Will they consider the decimation of the northern Yellowstone elk herd a problem or will they consider it normal and leave things well enough alone? This is a bigger concern to me than whether the wolf is delisted or not. Do we really want to trade in the known evil for the unknown evil when it comes to wolf management?

I was always interested in putting forward the ideas that represented my viewpoint. I feel the same about anything I'm doing. David Lloyd

There was a wolf that was killing livestock, 120 sheep, in the Circle area last year. Officials finally found and shot it. The state has finally released some information about the wolf. It was not a wild wolf, but a "domestic" wolf that somebody let loose. The DNA of the wolf proves this since it comes from a variety of sources that never would manage to get combined in the wild.

I wonder how the person that let this wolf go feels about the havoc they caused? Do they have any feelings at all for the 120 head of sheep this wolf killed? Some of these sheep were killed not to eat, but just to be killed. Why would a person do this? A wold that was raised domestically would not have the proper tools to survive in the wild so in a way was this not cruelty to turn the animal loose? I know it was cruelty to the animals he killed and murdered. I wonder if the person who released this animal thought about this stuff, hell if they thought at all?

The chances of them finding whoever turned this animal loose are slim to none. If they did though the person should have to pay damages to the ranchers who were affected by this wolf's murderous rampage. I don't think people pay any attention to the consequences of their actions. What you do not only affects you, but it affects other people in the world. Turning a "domestic" wolf loose was a disaster for all concerned but I'm sure the person who did it doesn't care. They're probably just mad that the wolf was shot. People are crazy on this wolf issue. I wish a little common sense could come into play.

Cruelty is, perhaps, the worst kid of sin. Intellectual cruelty is certainly the worst kind of cruelty. Gilbert K. Chesterton

Wildlife agency plans to delist gray wolves

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday said it plans on delisting gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains by the end of the year, but it's unclear whether wolves in Wyoming will be included.

The agency also said Monday that it is removing some 4,000 wolves in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin from the endangered-species list. That decision will be effective in about a month.

"This is a major success story for conservation achieved under the Endangered Species Act," Lynn Scarlett, deputy secretary of the Interior, which oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, said in a telephone conference with reporters.

I am so glad to see this. We have seen that the wolves breed like flies so I don't think the populations are in danger any more. The State of Montana has shown that it is more than capable of handling its wildlife population without the Federal Government sticking its nose in. Lets do it that way. I'm hoping that the state will be more responsive and act quicker to trouble wolves than the Feds were. No proof that this will be the case, but I can hope.

Let me be clear here. I do not like wolves running around killing critters willy nilly. It goes against my basic instinct of taking care of the animals around me. I will also admit that the economic consequences of wolves to ranchers is real and of concern. Eventually wolves will reach this area and I will have to deal with it. I would never advocate the three S solution to wolf management, Shoot, Shovel and Shut up but don't ask me what I would do if a wolf was around here. You might not like the answer.

I answer, If men did understand them before they were done, they would endeavor to let the fulfilling of them; and when the signification is fulfilled, then to see how plainly it was described in the scripture doth exceedingly confirm the faith thereof, and make it better to be understood. William Tyndale