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

Well, the second herd of cattle near Emigrant tested all negative for Brucellosis. This allows me to breathe a small sigh of relief. Small I say. They are still testing cattle around the affected herds in Bridger so we could still see problems there so a big sigh of relief is not applicable.

This still doesn't solve the problem of the Feds killing the affected herd for no reason but I can't do much about that. There is rumblings that the herd affected in Bridger is a purebred breeder that sells bulls and that anybody that bought bulls from him in the past 5 years is going to have their herd tested too. That could be a lot of cattle. That means a lot of chances for a second herd to come up positive and give us problems in Montana.

Even though Montana has not lost its Brucellosis free status because of this situation, North Dakota has instituted a policy like we have lost our status and is going to require testing of cattle or bison being imported into their state from Montana. It won't surprise me if more of this comes down the line. Is it right that ND is doing this even though we haven't lost our brucellosis free status? No, but I can under stand why they are doing it. States are very scared of losing their brucellosis free status and are going to do everything they can to protect it. It's going to cost Montana cattle producers but we have no control over what other states do so we are stuck dealing with their rules.

Governor Brian Schweitzer has made a list of ideas and recommendations for dealing with the reservoir of Brucellosis that is Yellowstone National Park.

Continue to hunt bison as a bison management tool. Montana joins
Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming in managing bison
through hunting.

Maintain better separation between bison and the approximately 700
units of cattle near the Park in order to protect the status of the 2.5
million head of cattle throughout the rest of the state.

Establish a small, specialized area near the Park where stricter
management protocols for cattle would be applied-100% test in, 100% test
out. In exchange, USDA-APHIS would agree that Montana would not lose
its brucellosis-free status should two herds become infected inside that
designated area. The intent is not to increase the area where bison may
wander outside the Park, but instead to better manage cattle in the
area, and to utilize geography to control bison from December to March,
when they are commonly on the move. Beyond this area a "drop dead" zone
would exist as it does now. Each spring, all bison would still be moved
back into the Park.

Negotiate grazing leases with private landowners near the Park that
compensate them for grazing only non-ruminant animals until brucellosis
is eradicated-or even permanent purchase of grazing rights or other
management agreements that landowners find reasonable. Whatever the
mechanism, agreements would be voluntary, and the federal government
would need to provide fair-plus compensation. The amount of private
land involved likely would not exceed 9,000 or 10,000 acres. Montana
has 94 million total acres, so the area in question would make up about
one ten-thousandth of the land area of the state. For perspective, that
is an area the size of New York City on a map of the lower 48 states.
To these ends, the state has been involved in productive negotiations
with Royal Teton Ranch, the largest cattle operation on the north side
of the Park.

* Fund further research into a more effective brucellosis vaccine, and
into more effective vaccine delivery methods. The Park Service has
recently completed studies confirming the efficacy of remote vaccine
delivery, but vaccine effectiveness lags. RB51 is credited with 65-70%
effectiveness in cattle. Novel vaccines exist, including "RB51-plus,"
developed at the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary
Medicine, and "Strain 82," developed at the All-Russian Veterinary
Institute. USDA funding for the National Brucellosis Eradication
Program should be prioritized for further research for bison, cattle,
and elk. Ongoing quarantine studies should continue as well. The
federal government must provide the resources necessary to dramatically
speed up disease research and development.

I have to admit this are pretty good ideas but getting the Federal Government to buy into it will be very tough. They don't want a separate management area for Brucellosis. That would complicate their life. The park Service doesn't want to take responsibility for controlling the Brucellosis problem in the park so they don't want to look at a vaccination program or figuring out to use one. The items that the Governor has control over he is working on but these items under Federal control he is powerless to do anything about. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

I have come across an interesting theory as to how the cows got Brucellosis in the first place. It's because of the wolves.

It’s the wolves fault. Anyone can see that.
The recent outbreak of brucellosis, which probably can’t be traced to bison or elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park, is being caused by wolves eating infected afterbirth and then crapping near where cattle are grazing.
Remember, the wolves were introduced by the feds. This is their way of getting cattle away from Yellowstone so they can create a huge buffalo commons.

Quite the conspiracy theory.

News is history shot on the wing. The huntsmen from the Fourth Estate seek to bag only the peacock or the eagle of the swifting day. Gene Fowler

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

Am I supposed to feel bad that the wolves in Yellowstone Park have the mange?

I'll guarantee you I don't feel bad about it. I only notice mange in coyotes whenever there is too many of them around so this must be a sure sign God/Mother Nature believes there are too many wolves in the area of Yellowstone Park and they need thinned out.

As for the State of Montana introducing this disease over 100 years ago? I can't change that, I wasn't alive at the time. All I can do is deal with the consequences of what they did. The consequences is a disease that thins a population out when it gets to large. Let me repeat that, it doesn't kill them all, it just thins them out. I don't see what the problem is. Almost all animals have consequences if they breed themselves up to high. Disease is one way of thinning a species down. I always say that is why diseases are getting harder and harder for humans to control. God/Mother Nature keeps trying to find a disease to thin us, humans, out. We keep outwitting it. When God/Mother Nature finally finds the right disease, watch out, the death toll could be high.

Do these statements by me mean I wish every wolf in the world to die? No. I think the populations need to be kept in check and managed. The Greater Yellowstone Park area has seen a very large decline in elk numbers since the introduction of wolves. Talk to any elk hunter that uses this area and they will confirm the stories. This indicates, to my small mind at least, that there are too many wolves in the area and something needs to be done about it. Reducing the population will also reduce the problems that ranchers have with these animals which is only a good thing.

People get way to wrapped up in this wolf issue both in favor of it, and opposed to it. For those in favor of the wolves, believe me, they are no great, noble creature harvesting animals on need and having some mystical connection with the All Mighty like you think they do. For those opposed to them, they are no salivating, evil devil that only exists to eat animals and small children who only kill for the pleasure of killing. WOLVES ARE ANIMALS, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER. Their instincts lead them to be what they are, just another animal with needs and desires which are no different than any others. Food, family and survival. No mystical special animal or devil incarnate, just an animal trying to survive like all of us.

I've pointed out before, ranchers oppose wolves on the grounds that they are a danger to their animals and lifestyle. Blaming ranchers for being upset with wolves is like blaming wolves for killing animals. They can't help but do what in their mind is the right thing to survive. We are natural antagonists, wolves and ranchers, that see the issue from different sides but both want the same thing, survival for who and what we are. Are we ranchers any more wrong than the wolf for this drive? I think not.

In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurring struggle for existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of selection. Charles Darwin

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

Wild wolves 'good for ecosystems'

Reintroducing wild wolves to the Scottish Highlands would help the local ecosystem, a study suggests.

Wolves, which were hunted to extinction in Scotland in the late 1700s, would help control the numbers of red deer, the team from the UK and Norway said.

This would aid the re-establishment of plants and birds - currently hampered by the deer population, they write in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

But farmers say more livestock would be killed if wolves are reintroduced.

[sarcasm]Those damn farmers worrying about their livestock again. Who cares about livestock, let the wolves eat them along with everything else.[/sarcasm]

We aren't the only ones here in the western US that are worrying about wolves and their re-introduction. The forces are at work all over the world. Everybody looks at farmers and ranchers as obstructionists about wolf introduction. They don't seem to realize that to us it isn't an academic question. Wolves are not only a thereat to our livelihood, they are a threat to our animals who we care deeply for. Most of these animals we know, understand, and love. A lot of times we have raised them babies and it scares us that wolves might hurt them. We are not obstructing the wolves, we are flat scared of the consequences of them.

The law of unintended consequences pushes us ceaselessly through the years, permitting no pause for perspective. Richard Schickel

Feds may delist wolf in two states

Wolves in Montana and Idaho could be taken off the endangered species list even if Wyoming wolves remain listed, federal officials said Tuesday.

A proposal to delist wolves could come as early as next month.

Just a lot more talk, when will we see definite action? Montanans have been waiting for delisting for a couple of years and all we get is talk. I'm tired of hearing it.

Talk that does not end in any kind of action is better suppressed altogether. Thomas Carlyle

Agents kill wolf sought in attacks on sheep

The mystery killer has been killed. Federal agents Thursday morning shot a 106-pound wolf believed to be responsible for sheep kills in Garfield, McCone and Dawson counties late last year and earlier this year.

About 120 sheep died and others were injured in a spate of attacks that had local livestock owners on edge for months. There was frequent speculation among wildlife experts and locals that the elusive predator was either a wolf or wolf hybrid. Some thought there was more than one animal stalking the sheep.

"We do think it was a single animal and this chapter is closed," Carolyn Sime, head of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks' wolf program, said Thursday evening.

In a way, it is nothing new for a wolf to be shot for killing domestic livestock, so why do I point this particular one out?

There are still plenty of questions about the wolf. Chief among them is where it came from. Wolves, especially males, are known for traveling far in search of food.

The wolf shot Thursday was more than 150 miles from the fringes of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, where the wolf population has grown to more than 300 since reintroduction in 1995 and 1996.

There are no other known wolves in the area and it is so far from the site of re-introduction in Yellowstone park, that's why it's significant. People wonder why ranchers are concerned about wolves. "About 120 sheep died and others were injured in a spate of attacks." That's a significant loss for ranchers, they have a right to fear such things. I keep watching and waiting. There will be wolves in this area with time. I am not looking forward to it or the consequences it will bring to me.

Consequences are unpitying. George Eliot

Remember, wolves do not attack human beings.

Wolf that attacked 6 tests negative for rabies

A lone black wolf that attacked six people, including several young children, in a provincial park over the long weekend has tested negative for rabies, the Algoma Health Unit said Wednesday.

The remains of the wolf, which has been blamed for several separate attacks Monday at the popular Katherine's Cove beach on Lake Superior, was tested for rabies and other diseases after it was shot by park staff.

I guess this wolf never read all the press saying that wolves don't attack humans. According to all the people who fawn over them they are gentle creatures that would never hurt a soul. Maybe they need the teach the wolves to read so none will screw up and attack humans in the future.

If this doesn't scare parents with little children it ought to.

Then it clamped its jaws around three-year-old Leah Talbot's left upper arm and began dragging her away from her grandmother and sister.

Damn dangerous critter.

Truth engenders hatred of truth. As soon as it appears, it is the enemy. Tertullian

I see there are some ranchers complaining that the state isn't fast enough killing problem wolves. for their tastes.

State wildlife officials take too long to authorize the killing of problem wolves, ranchers and others said Friday at a meeting of the agency oversight committee of the Environmental Quality Council.

"It's like a guy's robbing a bank and you have to go get an arrest warrant," said committee member Sen. Jim Shockley, R-Victor. "It doesn't make a lot of sense."

I have no experience yet, I repeat yet, on this issue so i don't know. It wouldn't surprise me though. Just reading the article it sounds like the State officials want to make sure of the situation before they go killing wolves to protect themselves from the Feds taking wolf control back over. Typical government cover your ass type reaction. Be afraid to make a decision because somebody might get mad at you and say you did something wrong. I would be upset to if I was losing stock and the state officials were hemming and hawing and not doing anything. Typical government mess.

Another story talks about the affects the wolves have on stock themselves and on their weight gain while on pasture.

Consequences of the federal wolf reintroduction program in the Northern Rockies may be visible on the dinner table soon, in the form of skimpier lamb chops and porterhouse steaks that expose more bone than beef.

For years, cattle ranchers and wool growers have fretted over wolves that kill dozens of cows and sheep each year. But the steepest price may be the declining weight of livestock terrified by the howls and footsteps of the stalking predators.

Currently, calves fetch $1.45 per pound on the market. So if wolves cause just a few lost pounds on each head of cattle, that quickly mounts into big losses, said Lloyd Knight, the executive director of the Idaho Cattle Association.

"When the cows are scared, they bunch together, they don't spread out like they're used to. They don't eat and drink - you can just tell they're losing weight," he said. "The loss of weight from the whole herd could cost far more than the depredation of a few calves. It's something we've been afraid of since the reintroduction program began."

Now I've never heard of this concern before with wolves returning to livestock areas. I am not an expert on these things so I won't even begin to say for sure. Are the ranchers just blowing smoke or is there something to it? It would be interesting to know more information on this. I'm assuming that this is just like any other story a person hears, there is a partial truth to it. There might be an affect on livestock weight gain but the article overstates it. With the ranching business every dollar lost hurts so I can see why the ranchers are complaining. I mean really, the opening paragraph is a little overstated since not all meat comes from the area where wolves presently are, I know they keep moving further out, so not all critters are affected at this time so I don't know how a consumer will notice "skimpier lamb chops and porterhouse steaks." A little overstated. More information would be of interest.

For the record, I don't like the wolf return to the area. It has not effected my cattle operation yet but I know it will. Sensible procedures on how to deal with them and their removal from the Endangered Species list is necessary for Ranchers to protect their livelihood from this animal. The sooner these things are done the better. I'll keep watching and praying that wolves don't end up around here but I know better. The day is coming and I dread it.