| ? | home | about | productions | partners | fw channel | contact |
|
| ?FocusWest > Predators > |
|
Transcript: Non-lethal control Jim Peck: Okay, in talking about non-lethal control -- Jon Robinett, you're a rancher. How well does this work? Jon Robinett: We've done various sorts of non-lethal control -- we've done bean bags, shot gun shells, the cracker shells, we've done electric fencing, we've done helicopter tapes, we spent hours at night with 'em and right now we don't have anything that works satisfactory. We have a 10-wire 7-foot high electric fence that we install for bears and elk and the wolves have no problem going through it. It doesn't seem to make contact, it seems like they go through it fast enough, the slower they go the more apt they are to be a deterrent. Jim Peck: Ed Jahn, you were the producer who worked on putting this together. Have you found that there's a real commitment to this kind of control? Ed Jahn: Well one of the things I got in doing this piece was, on one hand, non-lethal control is being presented as an alternative to lethal control of wolves. And yet the same time wolves are about to be de-listed, which would mean they could be managed like any other predator, which means they could be shot. That would seem to me to be taking the thrust away from the movement towards non-lethal control because now the option of controlling them is more simple, cheap way, which is shooting them. Jim Peck: Nancy, is that something that rings true for you? I mean are you hearing that? Amaroq Weiss: Actually I, I don't think we're hearing that and I'm really hoping that, that's not how it's being perceived. We actually hope that using non-lethal methods with the public at a time when wolves are still protected is something that's going to get translated to the time when they're no longer protected. As it is right now we already have a number of ranchers that are switching to predator-friendly ranching, grass-fed beef, all kind of alternative methods to what's been traditionally used. There is an evolving consciousness and changing consciousness that we don't have to do things the way we have for the last 70 years when we haven't had predators around. Now that they're coming back we don't have to shoot on sight. We're a more creative society than that and I think that we can translate this beyond when protections are ended. Jim Peck: Does it worry you to hear though that people are starting to move away from this? I think there's a feeling from what Ed's talking about that we know most likely they're going to be de-listed coming up here, this is going to be a lot easier, we're not going to have to worry about all these bells and whistles. Amaroq Weiss: I guess I'm not terribly worried because I don't think that's the general feeling. I agree you're going to hear that from some people and it's good for us to know that folks such as Ed are getting feedback like that because that gives us more information to work with to reach out even more, figure out where we can work with people to translate this post de-listing. I wouldn't say I'm worried; this stuff is always complex, new things crop up. Just when you think you've got something solved something else pops its head up, so this is just one more piece in the puzzle. Jim Peck: What are . . . folks hearing around the area? Jim Caswell? Jim Caswell: I don't even think it's accurate to say that wolves could be you know shot just on sight because the state, all three states, have a plan and those plans prescribe how we're going to control wolves after de-listing. And in fact for five years minimum the Fish and Wildlife Service will be involved in all those decisions. So it's just not a wholesale they pack up their bags and go home. They're going to be here, we're going to be working with them as states to manage the wolf population to a certain level. Now it is true that to the degree that the Service is currently using lethal control with the state after de-listing we'll probably do the same thing, but we're going to be conferring with those, with Carter and his folks after wolves are off the list. Jim Peck: I notice you're nodding your head. From the federal aspect what is this going to mean? Paul Hoffman: Well I think non-lethal control is a tool. Just like any other tool in the toolbox it has to be used, but in the Service the term we use is lethal control as well as non-lethal control. And we need to keep all the tools in the toolbox as we find ways to transfer management of these predators to the states where that management should be, as well as provide a sense of control over their destiny for the livestock producers and the people who have to live with these large predators. Jim Peck: Do we need to use killing as a kind of control? Carter Niemeyer: Killing is just one aspect of, of predator management and it's been time-tested over decades. Killing predators to me is the easiest thing we can do. We have the technology to kill predators very effectively and in great numbers. The society we live in today I think we owe society as managers the choices and that's why we or why I support non-lethal tools so that there are those individuals out there who ranch, raise livestock, that want to choose whether they want predators killed or not. So I think we just need to keep an open mind and and look at various solutions. Jim Peck: Is it unreasonable to think that when you're talking about these kind of animals, these predators, is it unreasonable to think that there is going to be no use of killing in this? Carter Niemeyer: Absolutely if you got an example of wolves for instance. Wolves are going to be killed. It's unavoidable that wolves are going to have to be managed and at some point if the recovery effort is as successful as it's been it's reasonable to assume that wolves will be harvested or culled through hunting and other harvest measures. Margaret Soulson Hinson: Jim I'd like to just go back to the issue of the use of non-lethal control as a livestock producer. You have to look at a livestock producer's perspective. We want to try and minimize depredations in any way that we can, and we're more than willing -- most ranchers are more than willing -- to try anything that is practical, that you can use to try and minimize those depredations. So I don't think ranchers automatically go out and move forward with lethal control just simply because it's available all of the sudden. And I think that's a big misperception. Ranchers do want to minimize depredations, and the use of non-lethal mechanisms certainly is a tool and helps. Jim Peck: Well I think there's a perception that ranchers are just waiting, they're loaded up, they're ready to hit the field and start shooting at these animals if they can. Paul Hoffman: Well, I think there's also though a misperception that lethal control is easy, and it's not easy. Non-lethal control is typically 24/7 with a lot of the tools that are available today, and it can be more effective in reducing depredation -- which is what the ranchers are interested in. So lethal control is not the panacea and it's not as easy as a lot of people think it will be. Jim Peck: You're saying it's pretty easy though? Carter Niemeyer: Killing predators in my experience has been easy from the standpoint that we have a lot of modern tools -- you know from the use of aircraft to radio telemetry techniques -- so there's a lot of ways to get the predators and, and most predator control agencies you know they hold back. A lot of that is through policy and regulation, but if management agencies are turned loose to do what they're capable of doing far more predators could be killed. Jim Peck: We did it once before when we didn't have the same kind of technology as we have now. Carter Niemeyer: That is correct and, and one of the ways that was achieved was through toxicants at that time. Now we've, we've not used those tools, but if we desire as a society to kill predators we're very capable of doing that. Dean Miller: One of the things we found when we were working on the cougar book is that guys like Steve and Carter have the hardest job because the public has basically a Disney biology approach. I mean you people who are out here watching this show owe it to the agencies to get real about what we're talking about. It's different with wolves because it's mostly a livestock issues, but with cougars, you have cougars in an urban setting -- where can you find a responsible person who thinks that's a good idea? -- and so the public cries out for relocation which is a nice little, you know, skipping down the garden path solution, but the fact is that, that cougar gets dumped in another cat's territory and gets its butt kicked all the way to another territory or killed, it's not the wonderful peaceful solution. It's a politically expedient solution, but we wrote about this poor guy in Spokane who sort of lied to the public about what he was going to do with this cat because you know he drove out there and there wasn't a good place to put it and they ended up over-drugging it so that it died and he got fried for this. And the fact is the agency should've backed him and the public should've backed him up and said you know cougars are not endangered, there are lots of them, and they're re-colonizing east -- you're going to have to kill some predators. I think some of the groups that are saying, Oh we're going into a future where we're more creative than that. I think that's hogwash. We live by the rules of nature and some of those things don't ever change and to, to encourage your members to think otherwise I think is going to make the situation much more conflictual than it needs to be. Sometimes you just have to kill an animal that doesn't belong there. Levi Holt: Well, I would like to point out again that as an experienced rancher of the past, my family have raised cattle and horses for many years and it was a risk factor. Animals out in the wild predating on horses and cattle were something that we accepted and we knew it was a risk factor. Granted the reintroduction of the gray wolf has brought on other particular concerns and, and risk factors, but indeed if we're ever to hand off a legacy, a heritage of this country that is so rich, it must be with sacrifice. It must be with cooperation and coordination and I applaud those who have tried and are using the non-lethal mechanisms as well. I do believe that lethal control, legal taking of, of predators is necessary. When we look at the cougar and we realize that the populations are growing and, and out of hand so to say it's because we as humans have disrupted and interrupted the balance and, and we removed wolves and bear long ago and now we're wondering why have we this problem. We've mixed ourselves so much into this that it's tough to find a way out. And I think that is something the Nez Perce Tribe, other tribes within the northwest are concerned about. They have not been given their opportunities to work as co-managers in, in an adequate way. Jim Peck: What if we bring them back to the point where we can start hunting them again with the wolves? Levi Holt: I would support a hunt, but I think that in a way that it should be left to Carter or perhaps to Jim in their official capacity as it has been limitedly been working. I would also support and advocate that the tribes also have a purpose and a desire to conduct ceremonial hunts, so perhaps as we craft the management plans the tribes would be invited to insert and partake in this manner. That's something that we've always advocated for. Jim Peck: Bill Wall your organization has done a lot of work with hunting obviously, also a lot of work with habitat, what role does hunting play in this conversation? Bill Wall: Well I think hunting plays a major role and, and that was one of the things that I wanted to address because there's a big difference between lethal control as carried out by government hunters and sport hunting. A huge difference. And iIf you turn around and look at the history of sport hunting in the west it was hunters and their desire to hunt and their passion for wild places and wildlife that brought the prey back so that we have the predators that we have in the system today. I also think it's very important that we start thinking on a system approach to this, not only from a private landowner's perspective, but also from the system of carnivores as well as ungulate species out there which are the primary prey. Because if we're not thinking holistically we're not going to deal with the issue very effectively. And we of course believe that sport hunting not only provides economic incentive, but also political incentive to manage these species in an appropriate approach. Jim Peck: I know some groups like yours say hunters have been responsible for bringing back a lot of the prey base, which is responsible for bringing back some of the predators as well. Is it your feeling that without hunters we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion right now? Bill Wall: I think at this point they played a major role in what's going on in the west historically as far as bringing back the prey base and continuing to support good management of carnivore populations across the west. So yes I don't think we would be having this conversation if there hadn't have been some strong-willed, passionate people who were willing to step up to the plate years ago and continue to step up to that plate both with their passion, but also with their, their financial assistance. Aaron Miles: I guess my comment on how, how hunters and how America has shaped the populations today from the travel perspective we've, we were trying to get people here the newcomer, the, the new kid on the block so to speak to be able to learn and, and live with wolves and we've been affected the same way just as when, when the calvary came after us during the Nez Perce War -- the same kind of government programs were instituted to remove large predators -- and so we feel the same anguish that when we prospered before the coming of the white man in this country we prospered with the wolves, the grizzly bears. There was no problems between us, and we want the, the people here to be able to understand that there has to be a way and a solution to be able to live together. Jim Peck: Is part of that solution hunting? Chuck Schwartz: Hunting is a tool that can be used to harvest wildlife. It's a mechanism that if used properly is a very effective tool. A lot of people oppose hunting, but they think of hunting well before the conservation era when there was uncontrolled, unregulated killing of wildlife for meat or other purposes. Hunting today is very different. There's rules and regulations and typically game harvest occurs after everything else is considered and it's a surplus. And wildlife is a renewable resource that if managed properly perpetuates itself every year. And we can use that resource and maintain it in a healthy state. The issues oftentimes revolve around values, personal values. Some people are adamantly opposed to killing animals, others find it very acceptable and that's where the struggle really exists today. It's a social struggle about whether we should or should not hunt an animal and that struggle gets more amplified when you talk about hunting animals for meat subsistence purposes, which a lot of people accept, as opposed to hunting animals as a trophy, which a lot of people find objectionable. And then that's elevated even higher when you talk about hunting an animal like a carnivore for its hide and typically unless it's a black bear for example you don't eat the meat. So people perceive hunting in very different ways depending on their background and their value system. Ken Hall: I'd like to begin with the label of predators. I think is unfair because it immediately evokes a fear people are going to be preyed on if they go out, outside their doors and I think we have to realize these animals are teachers. They're telling us what's going on in their environment, why they're, they're in the urban areas, why they aren't in the mountains and we're refusing to recognize those lessons that they're showing us. I, the comment I'd like to make about the hunting was I, unfortunately I think the ethical hunters, the good hunters are outnumbered by those that, that don't care and they're hurting everybody more than the good ones are helping because they, they, they don't care who's land they're on or how the means they take to get that animal and it's usually because of the horns or the hide and then they, they don't cherish it and they'll, they'll give it up for a dollar and I think that's an enforcement is way overtaxed to try to resolve that. Jim Peck: Some people who are watching are going to be coming into hunting season pretty quickly; what should they be keeping in mind? Steve Nadeau: There's a couple issues regarding hunting of these large carnivores. For one, bears and lions in Idaho are considered big game animals, black bears and mountain lions. And when we start enveloping wolves into state management what we're hoping to do is to classify wolves similar to how we classify bears and lions and manage them similarly. That would entail potentially, eventually somewhere down, down the road an attempt at getting sport harvest that might alleviate some of the tensions that are currently, or currently exist between sportsmen or hunters of big game or other big game animals like deer and elk it might give them an outlet for some of their frustrations. But also right now in the west wolves don't have any real sportsman champions, and as Bill indicated earlier bears and lions are here today predominately because we have bear and lion hunters. Bears in Idaho are our #3 big game species as far as numbers of animals taken behind elk and deer and the effort put into them. As many people support bear hunting as opposed to the, or more people actually support bear hunting as opposed to those that might think of bears as a predator. Eventually somewhere down the road maybe people will consider wolves similarly and we'll have sportsman championing oh long-term population viability and healthy populations of wolves. That's what we're hoping for kind of bring wolves into the fold. As far as lethal control of wolves that, that's a little bit different, little bit different issue, but there's room for thinking. Currently we don't, I mean we don't want to open the barn doors and we don't want people to perceive state management of wolves as opening the barn doors, and, and letting all the horses run loose that's, now that's not the perception and that's not reality. Reality is that we're going to try to use non-lethal methods like we do with bears and lions currently. There are lots of other approaches. And with wolves, wolves may be easier in some fashion to actually have you know some non-lethal methods. It would be exciting for me for instance to have a pack of wolves that establish a population in an established territory in an area around a rancher and don't predate on or depredate on cattle or sheep if you could train somehow the wolves to establish a pack that are not be constantly having to kill them and having a new pack move in and constantly you know emptying the leaking boat syndrome, then that would be a real bonus. That would be something to look into. On the other hand there are, there are times and places where it's absolutely necessary to solve the problem. And with bears and lions what we do is, if, if the animal is in active molesting of livestock people are allowed to protect their property and, and self-defense and that's an issue that's, that's national, it's not just a western issue. It doesn't have anything to do with just predators, but that, that's the way that we would incorporate bears or wolves with bears and lions you can protect your property and, and sustain a living. But that doesn't mean you can shoot 'em indiscriminately. Amaroq Weiss: I've noticed that a large part of our conversation has been devoted to killing wolves, killing predators, whether we're talking about whether we should use lethal control versus non-lethal. What do we think about hunting? I'd like to suggest a shift in focus to recognizing the life, the life force that predators such as wolves insert into the ecosystem. And that when we recognize large predators such as wolves as being, and here biodiversity is a term that's commonly used. What we're recognizing is that it is the presence of these species that drives the strength, the integrity, the sustainability of all the other organisms in the ecosystem and I think that another way we could focus our discussion in general about predators and informing the public is recognizing the value that they give to our ecosystems which in-turn gives to us. Jim Peck: As we have this discussion and people are talking about all of these different kinds of issues, Oregon is in a position that we heard a little bit in the piece about. These wolves are coming, how should they be preparing themselves for what's about to happen? Or what's maybe already happening? Crosby Allen: I'd like to go back to the non-lethal control. I think we kind of skipped over the non-lethal. I think as was pointed out earlier it's very important to consider the rights of, of people whose life and property are being infringed upon. That's a constitutionally protected right and if we're going to be playing around with non-lethal control methods and experimenting with this non-essential experimental species, the wolves, then there needs to be something in place to protect these people, these people's constitutional rights. If either they need the ability to pop that wolf if it's threatening their life or property or they need to be directly reimbursed for that. They need to be compensated as is required in the, in the constitution. So I think that's key and if you know if we want to get off into these areas of you know if this will work or that will work, that's fine, but we need to take care of people's rights while we're doing that. Paul Hoffman: And while we recognize the role of hunters and hunting in the conservation movement we need to also recognize the role ranchers have played in the conservation movement. They're the ones that are maintaining the open space; they're the ones that are providing the critical winter habitat for many of the species that now will support the predator populations. So we need to have a holistic look at this and recognize that the ranching industry is facing cumulative impacts of a whole host of issues that bring to bear economic pressures on their industry. And we need to recognize their desire and need to survive as well as the desire of the species to survive. Jim Peck: Jennifer, what's that been like for you? Jennifer Ellis: Well we have several different issues and, and going back to opening the barn door so to speak. Most of us are pretty well educated anymore and we realize that there will be a certain number of wolves that have to be attained in Idaho. I mean we will not go out and indiscriminately shoot them, but we absolutely have to have the right to protect what is ours. And I don't know about anybody else in this room, but if somebody came into my back yard and shot my dog I'm going to be mad. Well our calves are the same and our horses, sheep, goats, anything else that you raise, and we have to have the right to come back. And I'm not so crazy about compensation as just being able to take care of my own. I don't need somebody paying me if I can take control, but like with Margaret when she loses 50 sheep in 3 weeks that's not fair to us, for everybody else's gain in the United States. Jim Peck: Economically, what does it mean for you? Jennifer Ellis: Economically if you lose a 10% of your calf crop say, we have 550 mother cows, if we lost 10% of them to predators in general that's our profit, that's all the profit that we will see. We can't do it. Jim Peck: What's going to happen to this land if, as they say, the ranchers get really hammered by these predators? Paul Hoffman: If we push the ranching industry off the land they're going to plant their final crop which is a row of houses, and I think we can all agree that, that's worse in the long run for the environment, for protecting open space, for conserving wildlife of all kinds. Dean Miller: The question I want to hear answered, and we've got a whole room full of these folks, is who guaranteed you a living? Because you know it's the one that always gets asked at the campfire when you're not there, but I have a lot of sympathy for the fact that wolf can wipe you out. I mean a cougar will get in and those sheep run and the cougars are keyed to kill a running prey animal and they're kill 50 of 'em in a night that's not a myth that's true it's documented. But I'm not sure that you were guaranteed a living on the public lands. I mean if I was in the silver industry the price of silver goes south he goes out. Same thing for you, you're Larry Craig two weeks ago in North Idaho saying you know we're not going to cut a lot more timber on the public land that day is over. You've got a congress now where people would rather subsidize predators than ranchers, most likely. And so I'm wondering how do you answer that question where there's a lot of debate about management of the public ground because when we were looking at the cougar question it was the same thing. There are places where it's probably irresponsible to raise cattle because you know there's so many predators there it's a predator sync that you're going to, you're going to have big losses and the public isn't going to support the killing of that many predators. So are there, is there going to be a change in the ranching industry to where maybe we don't use so much public grass beef? Jon Robinett: One thing I'd like to address on that is in all of the discussions we've had is a lack of equality on the people who bear the brunt of this. The people who live with them daily and have the problems. And as far as guaranteeing my living is that we play into the same laws that everybody else does in this room we have a constitutional right, pursuit of happiness, things like that and that's where I'll leave that. But when it's the equality is not being divided up amongst the people it's just bared by a few, a segment of the population that's the problem we're having. Wildlife's driven by necessity we're driven by economics and that's where the road comes. But we have the same rights and the same you know to be a rancher to be an environmentalist to be a writer, we have those constitutional rights and we shouldn't have to forfeit those because a certain segment of the population says we don't want you to do that anymore. We live, most of our kills are on private property, Carter Neimeyer's been there, we've lost six dogs, two horses, numerous cattle. Previous. Can I go on with this? Prior to the wolf reintroduction the most cattle we lost in one year was 22 head to grizzly bears associated to bears. The, the 1997 we went to 61 cattle loss after the Washkee Pack set up housekeeping and everything we've done we've stayed within the parameters of the law. We've went through the legal system, we went through everything that we could, we've never broken the law, we don't intend to, but where is the equality in that? Dean Miller: The question, I guess the question that always gets asked is if you look at where tax dollars get spent. Jon Robinett: How many tax dollars? Dean Miller: The people here in the west we complain about those dang easterners, but we . . . federal money. Jon Robinett: How much federal money is going into my operation? Can you give me a number? Dean Miller: I don't know your operation. What I'm saying is . . . Jon Robinett: Okay I'm telling you on private property is where we have the biggest issues the wolves come on the lawn, they fight with the dogs, they kill the dogs, on private property. On public land is, is a different issue. Dean Miller: Right is, is that the standard wolf problem is that it's always on private property I don't think you can say that. Jon Robinett: No it's not we're probably one of the few people that have 90% of our problems on private land. Dean Miller: Right. The I guess the question I have is that there everybody's industry is subsidized. I don't think you can say you know I'm in the newspaper business oh we're not subsidized, well we probably are, there's probably tax code provisions that help all of us. But the question is where it's the national lands you sort of, because you've chosen to do business on the national lands you don't have it equal you have to deal with the national the consensus. Jon Robinett: Until the federal house and senate change multiple use issues we're still covered. I mean that might be coming down the road right, but we're not in violation of any laws operating on public land. Dean Miller: No, but what I'm saying is the support for what you do is you are a, a daholden to whatever the national consensus is and you can see that consensus shifting right now. And it may shift, you know it may be a pendulum swing, but it shifts. Jim Caswell: One of the responses I have to that is, in a land state like Idaho where 63% or 66% of the land is owned by the federal government how do you protect private property and its value from a conservation perspective. I mean if, it's kind of what Paul said earlier. You know the worst allotment is better than the best subdivision. When you compare that to conservation, species, long-term perpetuation of any, any critters -- I don't care what they are -- you've got to bring private property to the, to the table; you can't do it on the back of federal ground. And if we're going to recover species, even ones that are abundant currently and keep 'em abundant, you've got to have good conservation going on, on private land. And in order to do that in this part of the, the world you know in rural economies you've got to use federal land as a backstop to help those ranchers if that's the key, the key industry survive you just have to. They've got to be part of the solution and you can't use this kind of draconian thinking about we ought to lock it up; that is not the multiple-use mandate, particularly national forest and BLM. Turn it into a park if that's what you want to do. Then you can have a little more control over those kinds of issues. Get that through Congress. Jon Robinett: I'm sorry, but I want to make a point, when you talk about alternative issues, we've been to the legislature and we've asked to have it considered that if we go out of the cattle business period. Can we maintain our ag base and if so we'll turn the land back theoretically to wolves, bears, elk, things like that and we'll step out of the picture. Very few counties and you can ask uh, . . . over here, very few counties want to give up that opportunity to go from an ag based to 9 ??%, it's not in our statutes. Can we do that? Can some of you environmental people go to the legislature and make those changes and make it possible to reduce the usage, the traditional use into a more futuristic use? Amaroq Weiss: It's certainly one of the things that Defenders is working on. In a number of states we have a huge project going on in Oregon and also in Florida and that is developing prime areas for buyer diversity and working with agriculture folks in those areas with conservation incentives to keep those lands open to be used by wildlife and by agriculture and not to be developed. That's the way we'd like to see things going. It's certainly not Defenders position to drive folks in agriculture from the land. Keeping folks in agriculture usually ends up being a good, a good thing for wildlife. It keeps areas from being developed, my personal discussions with many ranchers including Margaret has been that we share a deep, deep love for the land so there's a very common bond there. Yes I think that there are solutions that can be worked out legislatively and it does take creative thinking not, not fantasy, but creative thinking that's what we're based on, that's what are species is good for and I, I agree with that John I think that, that's a solution we should be working on together. Dean Miller: Just one final thing. Isn't that somebody asked you guys to justify you're getting to living on the land you assume they're environmentalist which is, if you knew me, you'd find humorous. Jon Robinett: Well, we are environmentalists. Dean Miller: But, sure you are and my question is everybody has to take a part in this. I mean the people that are watching this in Southern California who think of themselves as protectors of wildlife sitting on their little ranch right above town, they've done more damage than you have by, because development chews up more land than, than resource use. Jon Robinett: What does it cost you to have a wolf on our ranch? Dean Miller: Right exactly that's the question is. Jon Robinett: And that's the point you need to get out to, to the populations is that the ownership is, everybody claims ownership, but nobody pays the bill except for a few people that, that are impacted. Dean Miller: Right, but my point is to say this is a classic case of polarizing right there. You know all, all people have asked for is tell us why you're owed a job on the land? I'm not saying I think that's wrong; I just want to know about it because it's, it's something that's not discussed often enough. Do you see my point? Jon Robinett: Do you want to pursue this? Jim Peck: Actually we're going to have a lot of chance to talk about it further. [View the video of this discussion segment] |
Navigation Links Predator News Lincoln County pays for grizzly bear study in NW Montana, N. Idaho Trail camera captures mother wolf in Oregon's Eagle Cap Wilderness Montana agents capture grizzly bear that killed 60 sheep Car hits, kills young male grizzly bear in Grand Teton National Park Idaho wolf pup on its way to new home in Virginia Wyoming game officials capture grizzly bear near Cody Dozens share views on wolf management at Montana FWP meeting Opponents of wolf hunts in Idaho, Montana end appeals Four species in Wyoming deserve more attention Yellowstone Park officials investigate hiker's encounter with wolf
|
?
