Editor's note: A rally to raise public awareness about wolves in and around Yellowstone National Park is scheduled for late June near the north entrance to the park at Gardiner, Montana. The following release came from the program's organizers.
The establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 represents one of the greatest achievements in American history, affording protection to one of our country's true wild places. Appreciation for this action, and the land it preserved, is increasing with each passing generation. And Yellowstone is much more than an American treasure; it is an international jewel, attracting millions of people from all over the world every year.
Fast-forward 123 years to 1995 and 1996, when the federal government, at the behest of the American people, released 66 gray wolves into Yellowstone. After one of America's most iconic species was brought to near extinction through hunting, trapping, poisoning, and other government-funded methods in the 19th and 20th centuries, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service finally began to recover this internationally beloved species. And, because of its wildness and large size, as well as its complement of abundant prey species, Yellowstone was one of two places chosen to welcome the wolves home. Idaho was the second place.
On June 28-29, 2014, people of all walks of life are invited to attend Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014, a 2-day family-friendly celebration of wolves, predators and other native species that contribute to our rich national heritage. The event will be held at Arch Park in Gardiner, MT, just north of the Roosevelt Arch, near the north entrance to Yellowstone National Park. Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 will feature prominent speakers and authors from the conservation community, and will include live music, education booths, children's activities and food vendors. The event is free and open to the public.
In addition to daytime activities at Arch Park, the screening of two wildlife documentaries will occur on Saturday evening, June 28, at 7 pm. The films will be shown at the Gardiner Community Center, which is located at 210 W. Main Street in downtown Gardiner. Organizers will be showing Predator Defense's film, Exposed: USDA's Secret War on Wildlife and Project Coyote's film, Coexisting with Wildlife: The Marin Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program. The films will be followed by a panel discussion composed of conservationists and scientists. The films are free.
Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 is an opportunity for the American people to unite and demand wildlife management reform, and to take an important step toward restoring our national heritage. Unbeknownst to many Americans, over 3,000 gray wolves have been slaughtered across America, including around Yellowstone National Park, since certain segments of the wolf population were prematurely stripped of federal protection under the Endangered Species Act just a few years ago. The controversial delisting of the northern Rockies gray wolf was the first time Congress intervened and delisted a species in the 40-year history of the Endangered Species Act.
A public rally is scheduled for late June to raise awareness about wolves/Monty SloanLengthy hunting seasons now occur in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Hunters are permitted to hunt wolves with dogs in Wisconsin. Barbaric trapping/snaring seasons exist in Idaho. The USDA Wildlife Services just gunned-down 23 wolves from a helicopter in a rugged national forest in Idaho. In just 20 years, the federal government has completely reversed its course on the biological recovery of the gray wolf, and is now in the business of wiping them out again.
While many people are calling for relisting of gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, others are saying that it is time to completely reform wildlife management in the United States.
Event organizers for Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 have developed the following five keys to reforming wildlife management in America:
* Ban trapping/snaring on all federal public lands.
* End grazing on all federal public lands.
* Abolish the predator-control department of the USDA Wildlife Services.
* Reform how state fish and game agencies operate.
* Introduce legislation to protect all predators, including wolves, from sport hunting, trapping, and snaring.
Please consider attending Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014. The only thing that can save the gray wolf from a second extermination is a strong grassroots movement consisting of every-day people. Let's come together and embark on this journey together. Let's make the world a better place, for not only current generations, but also for those generations still to come. Your support is greatly appreciated! Learn more at www.speakforwolves.org or follow the event for updates at www.facebook.com/speakforwolvesyellowstone2014.
Comments
living, when you try to discredit part of the information I posted by claiming it compares national and not local numbers, you're wrong.
Try actually getting into the report and reading something besides the title page.
Check out page 8 for example, where you will learn that in Montana, only a tiny percentage of cattle deaths were from predators of all kinds. However, on page 9, we do learn that of predator deaths, wolves did account for more than coyotes or cats. What is not told in these numbers, however, is the fact that when a wolf kill is confirmed, the rancher is reimbursed for the loss.
Here is a link to the Montana state website that records payments for livestock losses:
http://liv.mt.gov/LLB/lossdata_2013.mcpx
Instead of emotional rantings, how about posting some facts to support your side?
And if you really have legitimate reasons for remaining anonymous, you can at least tell us where you are from, what your occupation is, why you have the opinions you espouse. What are your qualifications for posting your information? Are you posting facts or merely opinions? Are those opinions based on personal experience, or are you regurgitating someone else's opinions?
lol. What are YOUR qualifications? How arrogant of you. It is obvious you do not know anything about wolves except for the stereotypes and mistruths you read on the internet.
Whether you consider my reasons for remaining anonymous "legitimate" or not, I don't care. Are you the moderator of this forum? Please quit harassing me. Please inform all of the other commenters on here that you want their names and personal info, too.
Since I live with wolves and see what they do, REAL LIFE, I don't need to look at any bigoted propaganda from a wolflover website. Besides, that might be a tiny bit biased, don't ya think? Thanks, but no thanks. Absolutely no relevance to wolf predations in states with wolves. Why can't you comprehend that? Too bad you are so steeped in your predjudices and stereotypes of what you think ranchers are and what they do, that you are afflicted with terminal tunnel-vision. Get out and speak to ranchers that have suffered wolf depradations. Looks like the only "emotional" one here is you and you cannot accept facts I repeatedly put before you.
Once again,it is NOT a fact that ranchers are reimbursed. Please back that up by posting the names and amount of "compensation". Prove it. I will be awaiting your "facts".
Too bad you live in a fantasy world on the internet. Laziness.
I'm awaiting your link for the statistics of cattle killed by wolves only and only in states with wolves.
Again, citing a stat about all of the general causes of deaths in livestock in all 50 states has nothing to do with wolves. Please post the most recent numbers, too. Not 4-5 year old figures. Good luck with that. Those stats are only accurate if all ranchers report their losses and none that I know, report anything anymore, since delisting. I'm sure you can make something up though.
I know of a local grazing association that had 30 wolf depredations, confirmed, that were not reported. The wolves were killed. Another ranching friend, had over 20 cows killed by wolves, in 3 months, last year, confirmed, not reported. All the wolves responsible were killed.
An emotional subject on which it's hard to find a lot of middle ground, with plenty of hard questions.
Wolves can't be expected to remain within artificially drawn boundaries separating places like Yellowstone from adjacent land, so we find ourselves with difficult questions, such as: Should ranchers, especially those who run cattle on leased public land outside the park, be expected to accept some loses to predation as part of the cost of doing business on public land?
If so, what constitutes an "acceptable" level of loss will be defined a lot differently by a rancher than wildlife supporters. Should expectations of "freedom from wolves" be different on private land vs. public land used for grazing?
Should ranchers be compensated for confirmed predation losses as part of the overall cost of maintaining self-sustaining wolf and bear populations on public lands, including USFS and NPS areas? Should those losses be viewed differently from those due to blizzards, drought, disease or other causes? Tough public policy questions.
Part of the difficulty in answering these questions is the lack of good data. Livingwithwolves criticizes comments based on the lack of current and accurate data...but then describes a number of wolf depredations that were not reported by ranchers to any authorities. They'll have their reasons for failing to report, but right or wrong, that reduces the credibility of complaints by ranchers.
One of many issues – and likely a subject of frustration by both sides in the issue - is the question of "confirmed" wolf depredations. While there's no question about a wolf observed in the act of bringing down a healthy calf, wolves seen feeding on a carcass where the cause of death is unknown is a gray area which will be vigorously debated by both sides.
We shouldn't be surprised there's lot of emotion on both sides of this issue, but it would be helpful if everyone keeps in mind the debate taking place on this site won't change policy one way or the other on this specific issue– it's simply a place to voice opinions—so let's try to do so in a respectful manner.
Thanks, Jim, for a good post.
And, again, here is a link to a MONTANA STATE GOVERNMENT website regarding reimbursement for ranchers. Note that the latest data is year to date 2014. So this is about as up to date as you can get. It's also not information from a wolf lover website.
http://liv.mt.gov/LLB/lossdata_2013.mcpx
It's very difficult to try to cite facts in the face of emotional diatribes.
As I see it, the wolves deserve some protection. Certainly within the park boundaries and perhaps into some federal lands. Compensating ranchers for confirmed losses whether on private or public land also seems reasonable.
What I find unreasonable is Speak for Wolves' call to ban grazing on all federal lands and for a ban on all predator hunting. Kal's claim that ranchers feed only 3-5% of Americans is laughable. As to "subsidies" who is actually getting subsidized? The 300 Million amercians that eat beef and lamb, that is who. Claiming the ranchers are subsidized is the equivalent to claiming that construction companies are "subsidized" by the money we spend on roads.
Living--You need to calm down a bit. It is possible to disagree about issues without insulting the person with whom you disagree. One of the reasons I like this site is that we can discuss controversial issues without getting into each other's faces.. Your use of phrases like "wolf-loving anti-rancher/farmer enviros" violates that code
Rick
I have to agree with both Rick Smith and ecbuck. Nice to see some sanity in the discussion.
Incidentally some grocery store chains promote the value of grass fed beef. It doesn't come from a feed lot.
In the PC world Rick, "wolf-loving anti-rancher/farmerenviros" is a very accurate description. Bambi is there somewhere. That's the world that all the major issues are discussed. The real is at odds with the distant and virtual. More than just a few range techs having worked with real living ranchers relate and in a few cases become extremely sympathetic to their concerns.