People howl about wolf plan
By JEFF GEARINO
Southwest Wyoming bureau
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
SHERIDAN — The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission listened to more
than 20 residents and interested parties giving testimony on the
state’s wolf management plan. The majority of the comments were
critical of the plan. Here’s a sampling of some of the comments.
– “This strategy will not work. It protects wolves in less than 20
percent of the occupied range in Wyoming and classifies it as a
predator on 80 percent of its occupied range. We’re not dealing with
noxious weeds … they are wilderness icons and a conservation success
story of the century. Simply put, it’s time to start treating wolves like
wildlife in Wyoming.”
David Gaillard, Predator Conservation Alliance
– “Your primary responsibility is to ensure the plan adopted is in
full compliance with House Bill 229 . I urge you, with the depth of
public comment received today, to take this plan under advisement
and schedule a special commission meeting … a working session to
put forward your best recommendations in the plan. You need time to
digest and carefully discuss all the comments received … this
internal dialogue is necessary to craft the best possible plan for
Wyoming.”
Jim Magagna, executive director Wyoming Stock Growers Association
– “Wolves cull elk and deer herds and kill the sick, the old, the
lame and the stupid and leave the cream of the crop. Nature needs
these animals to balance hunting, which takes only the cream of the
crop.”
Dick Ferguson, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Sheridan
– “What happens with this plan is very, very important to our
members. It’s not fair, especially to the new commission members, to try
and adopt this plan today. The idea of a working session is indeed the
best approach at this time. I’d hate to see something this important to
the state be rushed through.”
Scott Zimmerman, Rocky Mountain Farmer’s Union
“I have concerns with this plan. Political boundaries and dual
classification is not appropriate for our plan. Give wolves trophy
game status only.”
Lisa Vogelheim, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Jackson
– “The plan does not make an honest effort to resolve (wolf)
issues … it is politics in its worst form. The plan ignores the
scientific expertise of the department … your artificial
boundaries have no scientific basis. Nor does it address the
economic values of the wolf to our region.”
Chuck Schneebeck, Jackson
– “I support the predator status outside of the parks. The steady
flow of wolves outside the recovery areas needs to be controlled.”
Howard Ewart, Casper
“The plan includes inadequate provisions to reduce livestock
conflicts non-lethally. It does not require unrestricted, non-lethal
control methods at all. I’m strongly opposed to lethal control methods as
a first response, I’d like to see other methods tried first. The plan also
does not designate linkage or migration corridors (with other wolf
habitat).”
Dave Pauley, Humane Society for USA
– “We support statewide trophy game status as originally proposed by the
department. The dual classification will adversely impact wolf recovery
and it will fail to provide enough habitat to maintain seven packs outside
the parks … because most packs live entirely outside the protection
areas. It’s likely illegal and unacceptable in terms of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).”
Steve Thomas, Wyoming Outdoor Council
– “Dual status is bad wildlife management … and may spoil
successful delisting. The artificial boundaries around Yellowstone
are unacceptable … they restrict wolf populations to arbitrary
political boundaries. It also fails to address the funding issue …
there’s no adequate funding mechanism to cover the cost of managing
wolves.”
Patricia Dowd, Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club
– “Wolf viewing is the Number One draw in Jackson right now.
(People) have had an outstanding experience while viewing (a pack)
raising pups year after year in Grand Teton. But under the plan, the
entire pack would be blasted away because the den lies within a short
distance of the park. Their chances of survival (under the plan) are slim.
The plan and process is disrespective to the public and I ask you to
listen and care.”
– Krissi Robertson, Jackson