The genetic mixing argument is a complete sham. Number one the wolves that were brought down came from different areas of Canada so the genetic diversity is "high". Second wolf lovers always point out how wolves self regulate by guarding territory and that they won't over populate a given area because of this. If that's true how are they supposed to mingle and mix genetically? If a wolf pack kills a stranger and defends it's home range how is genetic mixing going to take place? Of course we know that this is nothing more than the hole that Judge Malloy was looking for to give the eco-terrorists what they wanted all along. An unhunted, unregulated wolf population. When the wolves are through decimating Idaho's elk herds maybe we can go judge shopping and file our own lawsuit for the damage caused.

Dick Kempthorne realizes his bluff charge is not going to work.

What's with the "Bush Administration attorneys" verbiage? The attorneys involved work for the Dept. of Justice on behalf of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They are employees of the federal government, not Bush cronies, not Bush appointees. Bush doesn't even know their names. The President does not order them around or micro-manage their daily deeds.

In a few months we'll have a different President but the exact same attorneys and employees of USFWS. Will all those people suddenly become McCain-ites or Obama-ites?

A big gripe most people have with the Media these days is the blatant politicization of what ought to be technical issues. Your waving around your political biases doesn't help your story, Rocky. Instead they make you sound like a political campaign hack.

Why not report the technical facts that constitute the story without all the hysterical politicizing? Are you afraid we might not know who you want us to vote for? Stamp it on your forehead; leave it out of your reports.

The tone and direction of the department is set by the head of the Interior, who was appointed by "Dubya". You really think the attorneys don't sit down with the department heads to discuss strategy? You're fooling yourself if you do.

Wolves are necessary to keep the natural balance of nature. They've been gone for too long since the killing spree at taxpayer expense -- when most Americans lived in the East and only cattlemen lived in the West and controlled the lands to such a degree that they got the feds to poison, torture, maim, and kill any wild animal deemed to be a "risk" for their free ranging livestock -- i.e., "sanitize the West" for cattle.

Well, perhaps payback time is finally here -- it's been long overdue.

Anyone who has followed this issue should know delisting wasn't going to happen with the states hostility in their plans and anti-wolf laws passed. Kempthorne himself knew it. It was easier to de-list and go to court and lose, than it could be blamed on environmentalists and a "liberal federal judge". Rocky, I would be interested in your comments on this?

Wyoming wanted to allow hunting over 90% YEAR ROUND! Wow, I'd say that speaks of their hostility pretty loudly.

They tease Colorado for its liberal minded Boulder who creates its own laws -- jokingly calling Boulder "the Republic of Boulder."

Maybe it should be "The Republic of Wyoming!"

Sarah Palin and Lynn Cheney in D.C. -- a real nightmare for wildlife advocates. I could see those two go out hunting wolves together -- without Dick, of course.

Aldo Leopold. One of the best essays ever written…

“My own conviction on this score dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.
In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.

I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.

BigCountry said: "The Federal Agencies charged with sound management have done a good job in the West. Yes mistakes were made but corrections were also made"

"Sound management practices?"

Are you crazy?!

Get your head out of the sand, Big County, or out of the dirt, whatever it's in!

Using tax payer dollars to pay for "Wildlife Services" that CURRENTLY kills over 1.4 million animals per year, 10,000 of these mammals including beavers, wolves, coyotes, foxes? The vast majority of Americans do not agree with the use of this money for barbaric practices like this. Thanks, but NO THANKS TO THIS KIND OF "SERVICE!"

They went out on an all out extermination killing spree in the early 1900's to almost present (!) trying to "sanitize" the West and "rid it" of any animal "deemed a risk to livestock."

What?!

Sound management practices? For who - livestock owners, that's who! Not the rest of us!

You can't touch one aspect of nature without pulling on another -- it's all connected in ways man does not even understand.

We want MONETARY REPARATIONS for all of the 100's of millions of animals Wildlife Services has killed since the early 1900's. Better dig deep in your wallets as anyone who had a part in this deserves to be sued.

If COLORADO wants these non-native GREY wolves then all the hunters and ranchers that don't need these wolves would be happy if you in your infinate liberal wisdom would come over here, rope these "HARMLESS" animals and take them to YOUR house. We have all seen the destructive nature of this very large and routhless animal that you are trying to tell the rest of us is harmless. Once again I ask if YOU want them PLEASE COME GET THEM.

Ask yourself why it was necessary to bring in wolves from Canada? Because you are your criminal livestock lobbyists and Wildlife Services exterminated the NATIVE ONES -- WITH TAX PAYER MONEY.

I believe that is called "tinkering with nature."

Wild animals have a God-given right to live wherever there is appropriate habitat.

We'd love to "come and get them" once we have support to re-introduce them to Rocky Mountain National Park.

People living in the country such as yourself (if you do) panicking about wild animals -- makes no sense! Move to the city if you are afraid of wild animals!

You can call it "liberal" but why don't you read my postings on the economy, taxes, too many lawyers in D.C.

Because it's easier to try to stereotype than realize that FISCAL CONSERVATIVES can appreciate and protect wildlife too. Too much federal and state intervention as far as paying private livestock interests for business losses. THAT MY DEAR IS LIBERALISM. Pull yourselves up from your bootstraps and take care of your own losses from natural causes.

And yes, predatory animals are natural causes.

Exterminating a highly intelligent and sophisticated animal that is a better hunter than most hunters did NOT make them "non-natural" causes. It just SPOILED Western livestock owners giving them a sense of ENTITLEMENT! You're preaching liberalism to a fiscal conservative!

STOP YOUR WHINING!

Why am I not surprised that ColoradoWantsWolves thinks US taxpayers should give him money because he/she thinks the feds have done a poor job of animal control?

Sound management practices "for livestock owners, but not the rest of us"!?! I don't know about CWW, but I'm an omnivore, and I know of a lot of other people who've eaten cheeseburgers recently, too. Plus, ranchers PAY taxes, while CWW wants to be paid!

I'm certain CWW must be some kind of high-ranking government official to be able to represent the entire State of Colorado's biological desires so confidently. Or maybe not -- maybe just a bottom-feeder with delusions of grandeur, wanting to make a quick buck at other people's expense. My best guess is dumb city kid.

The NATIVE wolf to Idaho and these parts has always been the TIMBER wolf. There is not any TIMBER wolves in these parts anymore. YOUR view of the GREY wolf is not accurate. The grey wolf is from CANADA! You also misunderstood once again, I spend my time hunting, target/ clay shooting, fishing, four-wheelin' I spend my time outdoors maybe you should spend a little more time outside you would see on the trail rides the wasted animals. If you think that I should stand by and watch horses, cattle or livestock of any kind fall to these non-native GREY CANADAIAN wolves you need to wake up from your haze, because they are not only targeting elk, deer and other wildlife. These states NEVER saw this kind of distruction by the TIMBER WOLF, yes they got their share but not to this extent. You could do yourself some good by paying more attention, its been in the news before that the wrong species of wolf was introduced into those climates, and just for YOUR benfit there is a DIFFERENCE.

There is 13+ species of wolf all lumped together as "GREY WOLVES" do a little more homework

"mrdiesel says: There is not any TIMBER wolves in these parts anymore...."

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ADMITTING THAT MRDIESEL.

*****************************************************************************************
Call for Monetary Reparations for North American native predatory animals killed by the Biological Survey/Wildlife Services from 1900 to present
******************************************************************************************

If livestock owners have the gall to demand continual welfare payments for "livestock losses due to predators," - those are NATURAL predators -- then first pay back taxpayers for your killing spree -- from the early 1900's to present, done "courtesy of "Wildlife Services" formerly known as the Biological Survey.

What about the hundreds of millions of native animals this agency killed on behalf of the livetstock industry? I would say that's about as criminal as I can think of.

How much is just one wolf worth? (at least $150) One coyote? (Wildlife Services kills 100,000 coyotes PER YEAR at taxpayer expense), One fox? Multiply that by hundreds of millions! Wow, we're talking big money to help us re-populate the Western U.S. with wolves.

Wolf opponents wanted the "smaller" wolf versions re-introduced instead of the larger Canadian wolves? Oh, well, we tried to find them but couldn't. Wildife Services and the livestock industry killed them all, remember?

I'd say wolf opponents are getting exactly what they deserve. What goes around, comes around.

"mrdiesel said: These states NEVER saw this kind of distruction by the TIMBER WOLF, yes they got their share but not to this extent."
**************************************

Whoops -- I think you almost said they hardly caused ANY destruction. That would be more realistic.

Now, you have a job to do. Either:

1. Go find us some of the "original" Timber wolves (that were smaller)

OR

2. Pay taxpayers for those your industry EXTERMINATED (with penalties added for deprivation of enjoying our native wildlife).

--------------------------------------------------
Y'all need to watch less Andy Griffith!

Dumb City Kid:

Who is this "us" ["PAY US BACK"] that needs to be "paid back" for the killing of wolves and coyotes? Shouldn't we all be chipping in to reimburse the federal government for keeping the price of cheeseburgers down? Or has that savings already been covered by taxes?

I do feel bad, though, that you haven't had the opportunity to "enjoy" a pack of rabid wolves at some time or another during your short, stunted life. Maybe you could save up and take a bus trip from Colorado to northern Canada for the opportunity sometime.

Normally I don't agree with individuals who claim to represent entire States (unless they've been elected to Congress or the Statehouse), but I have to side with foreigninoregon on this one: you need to stop watching so much Andy Griffith. The TeeVeeland jailhouse lawyer schtick is beginning to sound more pathetic than humorous at this point.

Hey, CWW, who are you, really. Got a legal name?
As for the Molloy ruling, I bet this is going to all go back to Appendix 6 or whatever the supplemental appendix was on genetic exchange. Molloy only read half of the dang thing, the part where GE was expected. But the back half of the appendix paper notes that if GE doesn't take place, then the commonly-used method of transporting animals from population to population would be more than sufficient.
So I hope USFS gets its remand. And Wyoming keeps its predator zone. They have a right to restrict the spread of unwanted (by Wyoming) animals into areas where their presence is not wanted, NOR IS IT BIOLOGICALLY NEEDED BY ANY OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.
Goshalmighty, this country is going off the rails and here's just ONE way it is doing so.

Maybe it is time to put this potential remedy back on the table. Several individuals and groups have directly been harmed by this failed wolf program. Most are outraged by the lies, promises, and deception the USF&W and IDF&G used to promote it. It has been mentioned that the USFW service is violating NEPA requirement of the EIS, as the original EIS was done for 100 wolves. The ESA requires an update which has not been done. We are at 1,000 and growing with significant more negative impacts.
Some thoughts on potential class of litigants:

· Outfitters - direct economic harm - loss of livelihood
· Ranchers and livestock growers - direct economic harm,
· Sportsman - loss of hunting, game depredation
· States of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming - broken contract(approved 2008 Wolf Mgmt Plan), loss of revenue (tag sales), game depredation, economic harm to rural communities and businesses

If you are wandering, the Canadian Gray wolf that was introduced by the USFW in 93-94
was not a native species. It is fully 20% larger and 50 - 75 pounds heavier than the native Idaho timber wolf. We have a Smithsonian taxidermy study on our website if you care to research. The USFW service chose to ignore the biologists’ warnings and potential violation of the ESA act as a closer species match was available. The USFW service instead reclassified the wolf after the fact to justify their actions.

saveelk.com

69% of Coloradoans want wolves back. There have been many surveys.

Rocky Mountain National Park does not want to "reintroduce them" but they will allow them to migrate naturally.

The problem is, wolves are not going to go thru central and southeast Wyoming as the territory is environmentally hostile -- (need I mention hostile politically too) there is little vegetation. And unfortunately, directional signs just aren't working.

So, we need to find a way to get wolves who have wandered from outside of Yellowstone to Rocky Mountain National Park where they will have sanctuary. Think "Canadian" wolves are too "big?" Fine, then bring in Alaskan wolves. The point is, wolves are necessary and wanted by those who understand ecosystems. They are not wanted by small-minded and pushy livestock interests who can't see beyond their own selfish desires.

Regardless, huge financial reparations are due to the taxpaying public as their money has been used to protect private businesses by a continual and criminal, all out assault on our native predatory animals.

If you are "complaining" that the reintroduced wolves are "larger," then whose fault is that? All the native wolves were killed. DUH.

As far as size, there is virtually NO difference in Canadian grey wolves and United States grey wolves. The terrain is virtually the same as is what they eat - elk. And that's what hunters don't like. Let's admit it.

Wolves do not understand political territories. The territory and terrain in the Western U.S. and Canada is quite similar - and these wolves eat elk, not deer, as Eastern and Midwestern wolves do.

These magnificent animals belong to the wild -- not just those hostile opponents that would want them harmed.

Do you think we care if the livestock lobby is "enraged?" We could CARE LESS.

Wolf supporters are "enraged" that these animals were criminally exterminated by your lobbyists in D.C.

Wolves have a right to be here.

If wolf opponents don't like it -- go whine elsewhere. I think they will find their exaggerated complaints are being scrutinized more carefully these days, as they should be.

http://www.predatorybureaucracy.com/book/

I tend to agree with YPMule. Living in the mountains gives us a different perspective on the wolf population. Those of you who sit in the city and claim that we need more, do not have them eating your pets on your front porches. As to weather or not we had/have timber wolves, we HAD them before the Canadian Grey was introduced. They are an extremely predatorial breed and are methodically eleminating any other wolves that "were" here. Those of us that have lived in the back country, have been privilaged to "see" timber wolves. They are reclusive and maintain a "normal" pack relationship. Only the alpa male and female breed. I say if Colorado wants wolves give them these that they think we need, maybe they will see the reality.