# Taking Wolves off the Endangered list in the US is a BAD move in my opinion! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2007, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493 "2007-03-11T16:35:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/41 "2007-03-14T01:38:55Z")
[QUOTE=Malodorous] So I don’t think its accurate to saying that Idaho is having wolves imposed upon it against its will. [/QUOTE] It wasn’t my claim…I was just provisionally giving it a pass until more data came out. Thanks for that data. I’ll look it over tonight (I don’t have a PDF viewer where I am atm). -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/42 "2007-03-14T01:50:20Z")
Well, since no one else has stepped up with a cite, I found [this](http://www.geocities.com/timber-wp/reintro.html) in a google search. I’m unsure of how reliable it is, but its something we can at least look at and discuss. There is another cite I found ([here](http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/depredation-analysis.htm) if anyone is interested), but the data only goes to 2001 unfortunately. > [@](#): > > During the Winter of 1994-1995 the FWLS trapped Canadian wolves. There were to plans made up for the release of the wolves. These plans were a hard release for Central Idaho and a Soft release for Yellowstone. The hard release consisted of trapping the wolves in Canada then transporting them to Idaho in a helicopter and immediately releasing the wolves into the wild letting them form there own packs. A total of 35 wolves were releases in Central Idaho, in 1995 fifteen and in 1996 twenty were released. The soft release consisted of trapping the whole packs of wolves in Canada then transporting them to Yellowstone where they were put into pens. The different packs were held in separate packs for three months. At the end of the three months the doors of the pens were opened and the wolves were released. In 1995 a total of 31 wolves were released in Yellowstone, in 1995 fourteen and in 1996 seventeen. > [@](#): > > So far most of the livestock killed in Montana have been by non introduced wolves that roamed back and forth across the Canadian and U.S. border. **Since 1995 only nine head of cattle and 132 sheep have been killed by the introduced wolves.** The owners of these livestock were paid off by the Defenders of Wildlife for their loss. Between 1987-1997 the Defenders of Wildlife has paid $42,000 for 62 cattle and 141 sheep lost to wolves. **The Montana Department of Livestock reported that 80,000 cattle and 90,000 sheep are lost each year in Montana to all causes, showing that wolves play a very small part in livestock losses.** Although many environmentalist fear that ranchers will kill off all of the introduced wolves only two wolves have been killed legally by ranchers since 1995 and seven have died of unknown causes, but the Animal Damage Control agency has killed five wolves. (ed. Bolding and emphasis mine btw) So, again I have to ask…just how big a problem is all this? I mean, according to the blurb above, of the 80,000-90,000 cattle/sheep lost A YEAR (in Montana), a vanishingly small percentage of them were killed by wolves…looks like less than 100 to me from this cite and other (100 might be generous in fact). I’m willing to be shown why this interperetation is incorrect…lets see some hard figures. Convince me that this is a major problem and that wolves are the cause…and thus there is a real need to curb them. Because frankly, I’m not seeing it. It looks to ME, considering what I’m looking at (which, admittedly could be wrong), that the ‘problem’ is one of prejudice and perception…INCORRECT perception. As I said earlier, this looks suspiciously like people who are worried about all the wrong things…worried about getting on that airplane while blithely driving about with no seat belt on and drunk to boot! Worried about some obscure disease killing them while eating that 3rd Big Mac with extra fat and a supersized portion of fries…but with a diet coke to make it all right. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/43 "2007-03-14T03:32:51Z")
As far as the livestock problem, I’ll concede it’s not a huge one. However, for those affected it is a problem. If a wolf kills your cow (or more likely your calf), that’s money out of your pocket. This is also a problem when you consider that it’s not a “natural” one. Wolves did not exist there for 80 years or so. The feds imposed them on this area. And I’m not so sure that public opinion poll is really relevant. One, it’s from 2003, not from when wolves were introduced. Living there at the time, I can’t recall anyone suggesting that this was a popular move within the state. Most, if not all, statewide elected officials were against it (across party lines) and the legislature tried to stop it. As you can see with the current story, most (if not all) statewide elected officials are still anti-wolf. Two, it polls the entire state. Most of the state was unaffected by wolves. There were no wolves introduced in Boise. There were no wolves introduced in Coeur d’Alene or Pocatello. Poll the people of the area affected. You’ll still see that today this was a highly unpopular position. Perhaps I am a little biased because I dealt, in a minor way, with this issue while working in the Senate. I read letters from these people. I talked to them. They _hate_ wolves. They hate even more the fact that the federal government imposed them on the area without any consent from the locals. That, more than anything, is the real sticking point of the issue. The locals felt completely powerless to fend off what they viewed as a directive coming from Easterners with no idea of their local economy or their wishes. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/44 "2007-03-14T04:11:48Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] As far as the livestock problem, I’ll concede it’s not a huge one. However, for those affected it is a problem. If a wolf kills your cow (or more likely your calf), that’s money out of your pocket. [/quote] I’m fairly certain that the gov’t and wildlife groups recoup the cost of any animal killed by a wolf in Idaho (I know thats the case in most states where the animals have been reintroduced anyways). So it’s not money out of the pockets of Idaho ranchers, indeed I imagine that that is pretty much the only source livestock mortality that a rancher _is_ reimbursed for with no strings attached. I’ll see if I can dig up a cite tomorrow. > [@](#): > > And I’m not so sure that public opinion poll is really relevant. One, it’s from 2003, not from when wolves were introduced. Living there at the time, I can’t recall anyone suggesting that this was a popular move within the state. [page 30 of this survey (warning, PDF) from '95 gives the same types of numbers](http://ppa.boisestate.edu/ssrc/archive/1995-annualsurvey06.pdf) as the '03 survey. Indeed approval for wolves in Idaho was slightly higher back then. > [@](#): > > Two, it polls the entire state. Most of the state was unaffected by wolves. Again, from the evidence presented in this thread, I’d have to conclude that _all_ of the state is more or less unaffected, whether rancher or “cityfolk”. But I don’t know anything about ranching, so I’ll join **xtisme** in waiting to see if anyone can scrape up evidence for any sort of signifigant economic damage by wolves. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/45 "2007-03-14T08:31:06Z")
So based on one cowboy Governor and some dweeb who wants any excuse to carry a gun, people think this is a real problem? This is Northern Idaho - shouldn’t Mr Happy McCrazy be carrying a gun to fend off the black helicopters of the World Government come to take him off to the concentration camps in Central Iowa? Anyhow, isn’t this a bit of a tempest in a teapot? Doesn’t the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service set endangered status? As for popularity, popularity (or lack of same) doesn’t mean it should be done - laws and policy don’t work by show of hands. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/46 "2007-03-14T13:08:20Z")
[QUOTE=GomiBoy] So based on one cowboy Governor and some dweeb who wants any excuse to carry a gun, people think this is a real problem? This is Northern Idaho - shouldn’t Mr Happy McCrazy be carrying a gun to fend off the black helicopters of the World Government come to take him off to the concentration camps in Central Iowa? [/quote] One, it’s not North Idaho. It’s central Idaho. Two, the Black Helicopter thing is around ten years old, so you may want to update your not-so-original insults. Three, Butch (and other politicians who oppose this) are representing the state. Regardless of what opinion polls may claim, opposition to wolf reintroduction has always been a winning issue for any politician. The Governor, the two Senators, the two Representatives, and the legislature all vigorously opposed it and all were re-elected by large margins. > [@](#): > > Anyhow, isn’t this a bit of a tempest in a teapot? Doesn’t the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service set endangered status? Yes, but when a species is delisted, the state takes over its management. > [@](#): > > As for popularity, popularity (or lack of same) doesn’t mean it should be done - laws and policy don’t work by show of hands. Indirectly, yes they do. People vote for representatives. These representatives usually approve popular policies and reject unpopular policies. > [@Malodorous](#): > > I’m fairly certain that the gov’t and wildlife groups recoup the cost of any animal killed by a wolf in Idaho (I know thats the case in most states where the animals have been reintroduced anyways). Talking to these ranchers, they say the conditions put on the reimbursements make it difficult to get money for all the livestock killed by wolves. Of course, this could also mean that the ranchers merely think more livestock is being killed than is atually being killed. For me, though, the economic damage isn’t of primary importance. It’s the fact that the feds imposed them on the area regardless of the opposition of locals. ---
**Author:** ![Faminista](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Faminista](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faminista)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/47 "2007-03-14T15:34:42Z")
Per the [Montana Government Website](http://fwp.mt.gov/tmc/vignettes/wolf.html#livestock) > [@](#): > > One major objection to the reintroduction was that wolves – described as highly efficient predators by friends and foes alike – would devastate cattle and sheep herds. To help address this concern, Defenders of Wildlife launched a program to compensate livestock producers when wolves preyed on their stock, which by the end of 2002 had paid out more than $270,000 to ranchers in the Northern Rockies. > > The predation must be confirmed by the federal Wildlife Services agency before Defenders will pay compensation. **Some ranchers have complained about incidents when they’ve know for certain that wolves took their stock but Wildlife Services was unable to verify that wolves were the culprits – leaving the ranchers to cope with the loss.** Not uncommon. The chain of evidence is difficult to preserve when the predator’s tracks become deformed by snowfall or stampeding; when corpse depredation occurs via scavengers hungry for their next meal; when the cattle are so thoroughly eviscerated as to destroy any evidence of wolf predation. And even if the ranchers are reimbursed for their loss (a loss they feel they shouldn’t be forced to suffer in the first place), they’re reimbursed for the cost of the _meat_. They don’t recoup the $8,500 dollars dollars they paid for a well-bred bull. Or the cost of a pregnant heifer. Or the cost of posting men at all hours of the night to protect the herd from the wolves themselves. Etc, etc. > [@](#): > > Depredations on livestock have been lower than predicted when the wolf reintroduction was first proposed, reports USFWS – in 2002, 52 cattle, 99 sheep, nine dogs, and five llamas were confirmed lost to wolves. About 23 of 80 known wolf packs were involved in depredations. _In those areas of Montana where Yellowstone wolves have dispersed, **seven of 10 known wolf packs** were involved in livestock depredation in 2002, and confirmed losses included 10 cattle and 71 sheep killed. Many wolves have been killed by USFWS when it has been impossible to deter them from further predation._ Another misunderstanding I’ve seen in this thread is that wolves permeate the state equally. They don’t. The wolf problem is very much localized. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/48 "2007-03-14T16:00:05Z")
What stops a rancher with a weatherby in the back of his truck from shooting a wolf on sight? Especially if it is on his property? I would think, nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/49 "2007-03-14T16:01:53Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] What stops a rancher with a weatherby in the back of his truck from shooting a wolf on sight? Especially if it is on his property? I would think, nothing at all. [/QUOTE] Well, there is the law that forbids it, unless the wolf is attacking his livestock. Otherwise, there is something that is known as “shoot, shovel, and shut up.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/50 "2007-03-14T16:31:42Z")
[QUOTE=Faminista] And even if the ranchers are reimbursed for their loss (a loss they feel they shouldn’t be forced to suffer in the first place), they’re reimbursed for the cost of the meat. They don’t recoup the $8,500 dollars dollars they paid for a well-bred bull. [/QUOTE] And yet, seemingly thousands of cattle (and sheep) die every year from non-wolf related causes…in fact, it SEEMS that a hell of a lot more cattle/sheep are dieing from causes other than wolf’s than are dieing FROM wolves. And I’m fairly certain that the gubberment isn’t paying anything for these deaths…so, I’d say something is better than nothing. You (and others on your side of the debate) have STILL not shown anything other than anecdotal evidence that its a problem. I’ve not seen any hard numbers (or soft numbers for that matter) on the scope of the problem. Seemingly, if you wanted to take wolves off the endangered list and allow hunting, such numbers should be available so we could decide for ourselves what the scope of this problem is…and yet, I’ve not seen any. Aproximately how many cattle/sheep are killed a year by wolves? In a given area if you like since you seem to think its a localized problem. Compared to how many sheep/cattle die from other causes? This should be simple enough to get this info I’d think…since decisions are being made about it, you’d think there would be some firm data to back up the supposition that wolves are indeed a problem and that they need to be culled back. So…lets see this data guys. Not anecdotes, not handwaving…lets see how big this problem really is. How can we debate this subject based on anything but emotion otherwise? I’ve provided a few brief cites…and frankly looking at that data I can’t see how anyone could believe that wolves are even a minor problem…even locally…compared to the numbers of cattle and sheep that die every year from disease, malnutrition, misadventure (falling off cliffs and such I assume), mountain lions or black helicopters and aliens for all I know. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/51 "2007-03-14T16:36:18Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Seemingly, if you wanted to take wolves off the endangered list and allow hunting, such numbers should be available so we could decide for ourselves what the scope of this problem is…and yet, I’ve not seen any. [/QUOTE] Delisting the wolves has nothing to do with the cattle issue. Delisting the wolves is based on the fact that there are enough breeding pairs to allow the wolves to thrive without federal protection. The feds have essentially determined this is the case, so they are likely to be delisted. The management of the wolves then moves to the Idaho Fish and Game Department, which will determine whether or not to allow limited hunting of them. The hunting is for management purposes, not to stop their predation on cattle. Currently ranchers can already kill wolves that they catch in the act. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/52 "2007-03-14T16:40:59Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] Delisting the wolves has nothing to do with the cattle issue. Delisting the wolves is based on the fact that there are enough breeding pairs to allow the wolves to thrive without federal protection. The feds have essentially determined this is the case, so they are likely to be delisted. The management of the wolves then moves to the Idaho Fish and Game Department, which will determine whether or not to allow limited hunting of them. The hunting is for management purposes, not to stop their predation on cattle. Currently ranchers can already kill wolves that they catch in the act. [/QUOTE] :dubious: Delisting the wolves has everything to do with the cattle issue…as its special interest groups funded by the cattle folks who apply pressure to get this stuff done. If no one was applying pressure, then no one would even bother to delist them…as no one would care. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/53 "2007-03-14T16:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] :dubious: Delisting the wolves has everything to do with the cattle issue…as its special interest groups funded by the cattle folks who apply pressure to get this stuff done. If no one was applying pressure, then no one would even bother to delist them…as no one would care. [/QUOTE] No, it’s not. These wolves have been hated by the cattle folks since 1995. There was no move to delist the wolves then. There is a move now that the wolves are at a level that no longer requires federal protection. The ESA has criteria for delisting species and wolves meet those criteria. They should be delisted for that reason and their management should be given to the state. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493/54 "2007-03-15T16:03:26Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] Yep. [Cite](http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/08/04/news/regional/90077d161ee15f0e872571be006b6185.txt): For the record, and from the same article: I just hate the thought of getting recreational wolf hunting started in this country again. To me it’s like hunting horses or dogs – even though wolves are never domesticated. [/QUOTE] \>\>hijack\<\< Is this true? Can wolves not be domesticated, not even when taken as pups? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-wolves-off-the-endangered-list-in-the-us-is-a-bad-move-in-my-opinion/395493.md?page=2)