it really is just a politics game. and let’s not forget that it was sarah palin who sponsored the “predator management” bill (SB 176, forever ingrained in my memory) that allows aerial hunting in the first place.

Rivrat
PS. where do I get a snowflake (avatar?)

What makes you think the Fish and Game professional staff aren’t making waves? Your assumption they are cowering at their desks and keeping their heads down is far from the truth. It’s easy to throw stones from the outside.

I suspect it has to do with upbringing. My dad would shoot something if the freezer was looking empty, but I don’t remember him being much of a trophy hunter. Those old bulls are really not the best eating, anyway. My brother used to guide hunters, but most of his own hunting has been with a camera. The unwritten rule was to kill only what you would eat, or that which was unavoidable and determined to eat you. Predators were to be taken as necessary to ensure healthy herds of other animals, but not for sport, or just because they were predators. Mostly, animals were to be enjoyed by viewing at a respectful distance.

One of the challenges we faced back then was that the Park Service and Forest Service personnel tended to be on fairly short rotations, usually not more than 3-5 years. So, just about the time they were getting to really know the area, the animals, and the old-timers with all their knowledge, they would be off to somewhere else and there would be another brand-newbie starting over with no clue. There really does need to be some continuity, and, as you say, a whole ecosystem approach, recognizing that the ecosystem does not start or end at human-drawn, arbitrary park boundaries. There also needs to be some realization that we do not have good data about what was actually there originally, and so, the idea that we will somehow “put it back,” and then “let nature take over,” particularly in a park where millions of people visit and which has seen increased development around it, is fundamentally flawed. The best we can do now is to create a realistic management plan. My best to those attempting to do just that.

That said, I too, have found past efforts by Fish&Game, Nat’l Park mgrs, etc., to be ill advised with sometimes horrific results. I believe that the “hands off” philosophy here in Montana has stemmed from past mistakes, where they really did not know what they were doing. What is really needed is a whole ecosystem approach, where all animals are taken into consideration (man included), and not just a focus on those “more desired” animals like cattle, Elk, deer, etc. Anything less will not work.

I completely understand managed hunting to maintain healthy populations, but random slaughter for sport, give me a break. I bet the same people who support this kind of behavior also want to strap their penis extenders on and walk around town.

I DO find the wolf noble, and believe they have just as much a right to live as any other animal. I, too am VERY familiar with the Yellowstone situation, and it puts me squarely on the OTHER side of ranchers. In fact, the ranchers are now up in arms about Elk moving off of Park land onto outside grazing land, as they suspect that Elk are the carrier of Brucellosis, not the bison. I have also read Alston Chase’s book, which was written in 1987 – 22 years ago! You might have noted in his later book, that he is just as much against unmanaged Elk/Deer populations as they will outgraze an area, destroying habitat for other animals and birds, as well as trees. And guess what helps that problem???!!?? Wolves! You need to bring yourself up to date.

As far as recent events in Denali, I will be writing to your governor, as I WAS planning on a trip to Denali this year . . . but not with this recent development.

Secondly, since this decision is likely to impact his business directly, why did he not recuse himself? Is there no procedure in place for the body to prevent someone with a conflict of interest from voting?

I do not know the area or the particulars well enough to take sides on the issue of the buffer zone, and after seeing what happened in Yellowstone thanks to large numbers of well-meaning, put poorly informed people who did not have to live with the consequences of the legislation they helped push through, suggest others not familiar with the particulars refrain as well, but from a civics standpoint, Barette’s voting looks very wrong.

Disclosure: I am no wolf fan. I do not find them noble. They will kill just for sport. The process of harassing and bringing down an animal can literally take days, and I have some ocean front property in Arizona for those who really think they only kill the old and the sick. Familiarity with the Yellowstone situation puts me on the side of the ranchers and critters like elk and moose. I take exception to the word “reintroduction,” since there is no definitive evidence wolves were ever there in any number, and I am appalled by what has passed as “science” there and how much effort has gone into obfuscation of the facts to justify particular positions over the years. It’s an old book now, but I recommend reading Playing God in Yellowstone by Alston Chase for a better understanding of what has happened there.