You may outgrow the clover but you never outgrow the experience....

Living and breathing within the agricultural industry (and all it's aspects), I tend to forget how many people out there are against "us." I was reminded this morning by Trent Loos and his Friday edition of Rural Route Radio, where he and his guests discussed a recent CNN blog questioning whether 4H desensitizes kids to killing.

Now in full disclosure, I was a twelve year member of 4H and I have been a 4H leader for 10 years now. My how time does fly! I was also an FFA member and stay current with my alumni chapter in Washington. That's roughly twenty-two years of raising, or helping raise, animals for the fair. I also did the home economics type stuff like cooking, sewing and bread baking. I carried about 7 projects for those years of 4H, and participated in many Career Development Events in FFA. I think you all are intelligent enough to understand the impact 4H and FFA had on my life, considering I am now an agriculture Extension Agent. :)

Getting back the the CNN blog and the point of my entry today. ... "Eatocracy" is the title of the blog. They recently did a feature on why you should buy your freezer hog (or other type of meat) from a local 4H member. I cannot say that these people are totally against 4H and it's educational model, but some of the people who read it are. This blog entry, "Does 4-H desensitize kids to killing?" uses comments from both pro-4H and anti-4H people, and both sides have valid opinions. Here is an excerpt from the blog entry:

"4-H stands for "Head, heart, hands, health" and apparently a fifth - for "haters." To many, 4-H Clubs are all about nurturing sweet little calves, adorable children winning ribbons, urban garden patches and proud future farmers grooming prized pigs for show. To others, it's a calculated system for turning the youth of America into cold, unfeeling animal killers."

This is truly what some people feel about 4H? When I read that paragraph I was appalled! How could such a wonderful organization have such a bad reputation with so many people? I actually learned more by participating in the 4H "Know Your Government" conference than sitting in a high school civics classroom. I am one of the few members of my generation who can sew, cook, administer first aid, comprehends food safety, can take some pretty cool pictures and can identify, diagnose and doctor a sick animal, and then some; And all this is because of my particiaption in 4H.

I want to clarify that the Eatocracy blog isn't totally bad. They did have a good article titled, "Five reasons to buy from your local 4-H." This article advocates utilizing the entire animal, sourcing your meat locally to cut down on food miles and 4H animals being some of the highest quality animals in the country. The blog entry we are talking about here is in response to reader comments generated from the 5 Reasons blog entry. This blog is acutally defending 4H and it's educational goals. Kudos for that! :)


Then I read further and realized it wasn't 4H the readers were upset with, it was the fact that people were harvesting animals for their omnivore diet. The reader's emotions and personal values were set to defame an amazing organization. Sad day!

"In cold blood - I don't and would never support the 4-H. This group helps desensitize youngsters into having no emotional attachment to animals raised for food. For those who say no one should have attachment to animals raised for food, I say "of course". This is how the meat industry stays in business. If children are raised to love all animals and not try to see them as products, they would not be interested in seeing them killed. "Listening to the auctioneer and seeing how excited the children get when their animal is purchased is an incredibly fulfilling experience."

Really? Incredibly fulfilling experience. You mean knowing the animal that trusted you from birth is off to be mistreated before being slaughtered! That's fulfilling? Maybe that's because the 4-H has successfully desensitized these children who may have once be appalled by this. It's simply horrific. Shame on you 4-H for what you do to animals and to children. - Heather King"

I wonder if this person is a vegan? Or perhaps they think bacon comes from the grocery store and not from hogs. I truly feel sad for this person that they never experienced all the things that I was fortunate enough to go through and learn in the 4H and FFA organizations. I can honestly say that you don't become desensitized. You become appreciative of the hard work it takes to raise that animal, treating it much better than simply humanely, and then are rewarded by a check and the companion animal on your plate. There is no substitute for growing and harvesting your own meat. And yes, I have harvested and butchered my own 4H animals. It's a tremendous learning experience, but one every person should have!

As an agriculture advocate, I realize I have not done a thorough enough job in my education of others! We all must take the time when we over hear a person in the grocery store or on the street saying something ignorant about agriculture. It's not their fault - they haven't been educated! Another commenter responded to the "In cold blood" entry with the fact that 4H is an educational opportunity not to be missed.

" Education, not desensitization - What 4-H does do is promote responsible animal husbandry and the cultivation of food resources in a responsible, ethical way. I accept your position that any killing of animals for food is, in your position, not ethical or moral, however most of us are omnivores and I for one would rather that those producing the meat I choose to eat do so in a humane and ethical way. I respect your position, but I would also hope that you would rather see people brought up to understand, and therefore demand, that there an ethical way to treat an animal even if that animal's eventual purpose is the nourishment of a human being.


Desensitization is the wrong word–education is the right word. These kids (I was one) are not at all desensitized to the process–rather, they are educated about proper raising and care of these animals. Not only was I a member, but growing up we also purchased meat and produce from 4H and FFA members–talk about locally sourced! We could be confident in the quality, origin, and raising of these products in a way we can rarely be in a supermarket. - Value rather than desensitization"

We all must work to educate others about what agriculture really is and how we, as farmers and ranchers, are the trusted stewards of the land. Now don't get me wrong there are bad seeds in every industry but with all the negative press about how agriculture is ruining the environment, we need speak up louder than the rest and tell people the good things that agriculture can and IS achieving. For example, the CRP prgroam (Conservation Reserve Program) even though it can be controversial takes steps towards preserving farmland at high-risk for erosion. Wind erosion alone causes 5.5 tons per acre of soil to be lost annually. This program helps to maintain and enrich the current soil levels. This is just one example of an agricultural program ushering in a new level of stewardship within the industry.

Take the time to educate others around you. Slowly and steadily the ignorance and bad attitudes toward agriculture will meet with what actually happens. You can't change every one's opinion but shining the light on reality may be enough to get them to think twice about agriculture.
             

Some photos from around "Crazy Woman"

So I have decided to dub my little slice of Northcentral Montana the "Crazy Woman Ranch" courtesy of my favorite Louis L'Amour movie. This post isn't much but photos so come on over and take a look.

Can you see my lake?

The river is high, the slew is full and the surrounding creeks are out of their banks. This water is all from snowmelt.
Thankfully the nearby canals haven't filled with water and the barrow ditches around the house are blessedly empty. Everything here is just a bit more difficult so I do not want to have to face flooding issues.

This is a picture of me and my pooples that dad took when he was out for a visit. Notice no one is looking at the camera but me. We were facing a bit of cabin fever induced ADD that day. From left to right - Lil Guy the Chihuahua, Yotee the Mini Aussie and Ruby the Beagle.

And because I simply couldn't stand not having something growing green in my presence I started my garden plants this year. From left to right - jalapeno peppers, sausage tomatoes, Tom Thumb tomatoes and Black Beauty eggplants. You can kind of see my cabbage, broccoli and wong bok in the foreground.




And just so you don't think Extension Agents stick to the book please enjoy this video of a wonderful little song written by one of my fellow brethren. Turn up the volume and enjoy!

"There are half as many farmers and ranchers today feeding a population that has more than doubled."

I would like to highlight "The Cattleman's Stewardship Review: Connecting Our Vision and Values" that has just come to my attention. It is a report that was funded by Beef Checkoff money and sponsored by the Cattleman's Beef Board and the National Cattleman's Beef Association. It discusses the beef industry's influence on communities, the economy, public health and the environment, and it turns out it's pretty interesting!

The world population is currently at 6.8 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, while there are only 742,000 farmers (USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture). According to the the review, there are half as many farmers and ranchers today feeding a population that has more than doubled.

The U.S. produces 20 percent of the world's beef while raising 7 percent of the world's cattle and they do this in a way to ensure quality. The report states, "it is estimated that farmer- and rancher-funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) programs influence the handling and management of more than 90 percent of the feedyard cattle raised in the U.S. today. Due to these practices, the 2005 National Beef Tenderness Survey found an 18 percent overall improvement in tenderness since 1999 and three-in-four consumers say that they have a positive beef eating experience."

Another key accomplishment cited in the review is the cattleman's investment in safety. The U.S. cattle rancher and farmer invested nearly $30 million in safety efforts since 1993 and the whole beef industry invests $550 million annually to beef safety efforts. "Due in part to these efforts and others, there has been a significant reduction in foodborne illnesses, including reducing E. coli O157:H7 incidence to help meet the 'Healthy People 2010' goal of no more than one case per 100,000 people."

America's farmers and ranchers are extremely innovative. The review highlights this concept through "a Washington State University study, where each pound of beef raised in 2007 compared to 1977 uses 20 percent less feed, 30 percent less land, 14 percent less water and 9 percent less fossil fuel energy." The drive and creativity of those farmers and ranchers has lowered the carbon footprint of producing a pound of beef by 18 percent; pretty good for a bunch of cowboys huh?

In 2002 the USDA studied the major use of land in the United States. According to that survey about 587 million acres acres of U.S. land, which isn't suitable for raising other food, is used for livestock grazing. Forest-use land is 29 percent of land use in the U.S; grassland, pasture land and range land uses 26 percent; cropland comprises 20 percent; special uses takes up 13 percent; and miscellaneous land uses 10 percent. Surprising to this blogger is that urban land only makes up 3 percent of land use in the United States. I honestly thought this number would be higher considering the startling rate at which we, the farming and ranching community, lose land to developers.

Now we all know that the farming and ranching lifestyle is one to be embraced and treasured, but did you know the nearly one-half of cattlemen and women volunteer with a youth organization (that's 47 percent) and more than one-third (35 percent) donate their time to other civic organizations? Compare that to the national average of only 7 percent and I think it's safe to say that farmers and ranchers most definitely give back to their community. Over 84 percent of farmers and ranchers also contribute to their church.

If that wasn't evidence enough of a community with a giving spirit here are some more statistics: "nearly one-fourth of U.S. cattlemen and women have served in the military" which is significantly higher than the national average of only 14 percent. Also, 94 percent of cattlemen and women vote in "national, state and local elections; comparatively, only 64 percent of the general population votes. One-half of cattlemen and women have run for an elected office and 81 percent have been elected to serve."

Perhaps the next time someone says something derogatory towards farming or ranching you can quote some of these statistics. You can find out more by downloading a copy of "The Cattleman's Stewardship Review: Connecting Our Vision and Values" or watch stakeholder interviews discussing the beef industry's accomplishments by visiting Explore Beef.

Procrastinating with "The Wild Within"...and dishes

Welcome to the procrasti-nation!

Here in my small chunk of North central Montana I have been doing just about anything there is to do besides the homework I desperately needed to get done. I mean I even did dishes for crying out loud! Well half of them anyway. :)

For those of you who would say, what does an individual who's cleverly disguised as a responsible, college -educated adult doing homework for anyways? The smart-a$$ answer would be that I'm paying Washington State University a whole bunch of money for a piece of paper that says I'm well educated...again! The real answer is I am trudging through my Master of Science in Agriculture degree.

There is a bit of light at the end of this seriously dark tunnel; at the end of this semester I am three-quarters of the way through my degree and have only my project left to complete. I chose not to pursue a thesis because I don't want a PhD so I get to do a project of my choosing; a professional public relations portfolio if you're wondering. Half of the portfolio is completed so the rest will be a breeze! Ahhahahaha! :s (that's my crazy face)

With my incredibly expensive piece of paper that says "I be ed-u-mah-cated" comes a good pay raise. So not only is that an incentive but it also opens up jobs in my home state of Washington, as well as states like Arizona and Colorado. I'm busting my butt to see it done if for no other reason than I've been working on it since 2007 and in my book not having it done by now is a fault for me. I push myself hard and this is one area where I've been slacking....no longer folks. No longer.

With that lovely piece of whiny rant I'll shift gears and tell you about an awesome TV show that illustrates a viewpoint I think a lot of us are coming around to: one of self-sufficiency or self-sustainable living. "The Wild Within" stars Steven Rinella, a gentleman who believes in the hunting lifestyle so he can fill his freezer and feed his family. I find this show amazing because it actually showcases hunting and the responsibility that comes with it in a positive light. I encourage you to visit the Travel Channel's website and check out Steve's show. You can also find the information there to follow him on Facebook or Twitter.

Steven Rinella not only shows hunting in the positive light it deserves, he makes the connection between the human-ness of hunting and knowing where your food comes from. He says in one of his shows, "Hunting is seeing where your food comes from. Knowing it doesn't just appear one your table wrapped in cellophane." What an amazing sentiment! I concur! Everyone should know where their food comes from and this show brings that concept to the general public. It makes me very sad to hear a child answer "the grocery store" when asked where milk comes from.

Rinella, also grows a garden in his current home of New York City He also plans on teaching his young son, Jim, the concepts of hunting and self-sustainable living; just as soon as he's old enough to walk. :) Additionally, Rinella has authored a book called, "American Buffalo: In Search Of A Lost Icon" which I have on my Amazon Wish List. You can pick this book up on Amazon here. I plan to do a book review once I snag this book and get a chance to read it.

Currently, "The Wild Within" is on in my living room and Steve is in Alaska hunting deer with his older brother. Yet another positive aspect of responsible hunting; being with family and sharing that experience with a brother, sister or parent. I know I thoroughly enjoy spending time with my brother and dad when we go out hunting ducks or pheasant. I treasure the time spent with uncles and cousins sharing stories and genial company with each other. These are positive memories I will always keep close to my heart. :)

Life-long Goal Achieved

For those of you who don't know, my family is very into hunting. My father especially! Walking into our living room is like entering a natural history museum - elk, deer, bear, coyote and waterfowl mounts line the walls. My father has recently achieved two lifetime goals of harvesting a record book black bear and a once in a lifetime record breaking mountain goat. Today he achieved another lifetime goal of harvesting a buck antelope. The following pictures highlight that achievement.



Clint Graf's antelope taken 9/24/10 at Wildhorse on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in North-central Montana. It measured between 13 and 14 inches on a rough measurement. 





Clint & Samantha hanging the carcass for dressing.



Toby Werk the wonder-guide!



The celebratory cape picture.



Way to go Clint!!! :)

A Look at Northern Rocky Wolves

As most of you know I am an advocate for hunting, the 2nd Amendment and agriculture. I read as much about these topics, and others, as I possibly can which is why I'd like to share an article combining all of these things from the NRA magazine "American Hunter" in the May 2010 edition. I couldn't find this article online already to re-post so forgive the typo's. I hope you enjoy it and learn something as well.

Who is Crying Wolf?
By Frank Miniter, Executive Field Editor

Ryan Counts, a hunting guide from Pray, Mont., sighted a mature wolf in Oct. 3, 2009, and grabbed his rifle. He was hunting elk on Buffalo Plateau north of Yellowstone, an area where the Northern Yellowstone elk herd plummeted 67 percent between 1994-2008, a tumble in which wolves played a chief role. He had a wolf tag. This was his chance to do something about the wolf population.

He killed the wolf.

He found out later the wolf he shot was known as "No. 527." It was a female born in 2002 into what had been Yellowstone's Druid Peak Pack, a pack made famous by the PBS documentary "In the Valley of the Wolves." He didn't know "wolf watchers" had named this wolf "Bolt" because is had a Z-shaped marking on its hip. But, even if he had known, he says he would have kill it nonetheless.

On the other side of the issue are wolf watchers such as Laurie Lyman, a former San Diego teacher who uses her blog to tell the stories of individual wolves. When Counts shot wolf No. 527 Lyman reacted as if someone had shot her dog. She wrote, "527 is gone. It is with a heavy heart that I write yet another obituary for a wolf that was a part of our lives for seven years ... . She was a one-of-a-kind wolf."

Such was the dramatic divide between views of the first modern wolf seasons in Montana and Idaho.

How Did the Season Go?
With an estimated population of at least 1,645 wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) finally followed its own guidelines by removing Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from wolves in the northern Rockies in May 2009. After a series of court challenges, season were enacted in Idaho and Montana last fall and winter to manage the wolf populations. At press time, Wyoming's wolf-management plan had not been approved by the USFWS; as a result, the Cowboy State wasn't allowed to conduct a season in 2009. Wyoming is currently fighting for its plan in court (see sidebar, "Wyoming's Wolf Fight".)

Wyoming's Wolf Fight
In late 2009, federal biologists estimated there were at least 1,645 wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, including 300 to 350 in Wyoming. The USFWS, however, opted not to approve the Wyoming Game and Fish Department's wolf recovery plan. The USFWS wants Iadho, Montana and Wyoming to guarantee a goal of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in each state. Wyoming's draft plan only commits the state to maintaining seven breeding pairs of wolves. Wyoming's wolf-management plan would also list wolves as a non-game "predator species" in the rest of the state, which would allow people to shoot the wolves without even buying a tag. The USFWS thinks this is too harsh. At press time, they were fighting it out before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson.

Carolyn Sime, wolf coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), is pleased with the results of the wolf hunt. She said, "Hunters killed 72 wolves in Montana. Our goal was to kill 75 of the state's estimated 500-plus wolves. We stopped the season early to prevent hunters from exceeding that number. It was a very successful hunt. We're now confident a public hunt can continue to be a critical population-management tool for wolves, just as it has been for Montana's other big game species."

Meanwhile, at press time Idaho's hunters looked like they'd fall short of killing the 220 wolves the state had hoped to take from an estimated population of 850. Michael Keckler, communications director for the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, said, "We're on track to get the wolf population under control thanks to hunter-conservationists."

Montana and Idaho used a quota-based approach, much like they do for mountain lions. A quota system establishes a total number of wolves that can be killed in each until. Hunters are required to report killing a wolf within 12 hours and to call in before going hunting to make sure a unit is still open. As a result, the kill was "well distributed geographically," said Sime. She added, "Now we can continue to perfect our seasons and quotas regionally to manage the wolf population with other big-game species and to reduce livestock and pet losses to wolves. The wolf is here to stay. Now we just have to learn how to manage them."

By the Numbers
256 - The number of wolves in the northern Rockies wildlife authorities had to kill for preying on livestock.
72 - The number of wolves killed by hunters in Montana in 2009
$325,916 - The amount of revenue wolf licenses raised for Montana in 2009
15 - The number of wolves hunters killed in Montana that came from packs that had a prior history of killing livestock

The Wolf's Future in the West
So with both states saying they had successful seasons, have environmentalists been crying wolf> After all, animal-rights activists predicted wold seasons in the West would bring extinction to the burgeoning gray wolf population. Indeed, the least hyperbolic stance from anti-hunters came from the New York times, which opined in an editorial in September 2009: "To us, the wolf hunt in Idaho and Montana seems indecent. Hunters want to kill wolves because wolves kill elk - and the human hunters want the elk. A second reason is a love of killing things. A third is an implacable, and unjustified, hostility to the wolf. It is well past time to let gray wolves find their own balance in the Rockies."

This urban viewpoint doesn't function in reality, says Ed Bangs, USFWS western gray wolf recovery coordinator. He says the wolf season in Idaho and Montana was hardly "indecent." Bangs explains that the ESA is not a good tool for managing a wildlife population. It is only useful for recovering a population, and wolves surpassed minimum numbers set by the USFWS years ago.

The idea that wolves should find "their own balance in the Rockies" is also a false premise proved with each cow and sheep wolves kill, says Sime. People live in every ecosystem in the West - no matter what a Manhattan-based newspaper says -so people have to participate in the predator-prey system. Wolves and grizzlies don't belong near Montana school bus stops any more than they do in Central Park.

A winter drive out of ski resorts in Jackson Hole, Wyo., or Big Sky, Mont., and into the lower-elevation valleys below would illustrate this point, as doing so would show any visiting wolf lover herds of elk that have come down out of the snow-laden mountains to wintering areas. These wintering areas are habitat that groups, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, have worked hard to preserve. Seeing thousands of elk and deer wintering along roads and near ranch houses and towns should be evidence enough that people and wildlife share the same habitat and so have to find a balance with each other, a balance maintained with science-based hunts, say the game agencies.

That's the reality, says Bangs, who adds, "Because of the hunts, the wolf's overall population will likely be the same in hunted areas in 2010 as it was in 2009. Stabilizing the wolf population is a positive step forward. These hunts will not lead to wolf extinction in the West."

In fact, Bangs says the USFWS is hoping hunters can be used in future seasons to lower the wolf population in the northern Rockies to around 1,200 animals, from at least 1,645 today. In 2009, Montana hunters killed about 15 percent of the state's wolf population. At press time, Idaho was still trying to kill about 25 percent of its wolves. Bangs says hunters would need to kill 30 percent or more of a wolf population to bring it down. Bangs says, "Another benefit of hunting is that hunters typically kill the boldest wolves. These wolves are the ones that are most likely to attack livestock and pets, so we see hunting as a critical part of the wolf's recovery and their continued acceptance in the West."

One reason for having a wolf season, say biologists and hunters, is that elk populations are being severely impacted in some areas by wolf predation. In Montana's Madison Valley, for example, a study done by FWP indicated that during that winter of 2002-03 wolves killed .125 elk per day, which was the equivalent of each wolf killing 23 elk from November-April. In the Northern Yellowstone Range - the area where Counts shot wolf No. 527 - wolf kills on elk fell from an estimated 11 per wolf from November through April to about seven as the elk herd plummeted.

Idaho has seen similar declines. Survey results indicated the elk population in the state's Lolo Zone, which was once one of the best public areas in the state, has declined 57 percent (from 5,110 to 2,178) since 2006. "This survey, combined with ongoing research showing wolves are the primary cause of elk mortality today, is further scientific evidence of the impact wolves are having," said Cal Groen, Idaho Fish & Game Department Director.

Also, When wolf populations outgrow wild areas and/or their natural prey base declines, more wolves kill livestock. In 2008, for example, Wildlife Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, spent more than $1 million killing 264 wolves that preyed on livestock in the Rockies. Agencies also paid livestock owners more than $500,000 for losses to wolves in 2008. Bangs believes licensed hunters will make Wildlife Services' job of controlling depredating wolves easier and cheaper.

Some of the livestock kills have been horrific; fro example, in Dillon, Mont., on Aug. 16, wolves killed 122 sheep on the Rebish/Konen Livestock Ranch. Wildlife officials later opted to kill the entire wolf pack.

Jon Konen, one of the ranchers, told the Spokesman Review, "I had tears in my eyes, not only for myself but for what my stock had to go through. They were running, getting chewed on ... they'd cripple them, then rip their sides open."

So activists, especially the anti-hunting group Defenders of Wildlife, are indeed crying wolf, say state and federal officials.

What Does the Future Hold?
After Montana's wolf hunt, environmentalists began using the killing of wolf No. 527 to raise money to help fund their anti-wolf hunting lawsuits. To them, the killing of wolf No. 527 is an example of a man's war on nature. For example, in response to a blog by wolf watcher Ramey Channel on death of wolf No. 527, in which she called on others to protest the "wolf slaughter," one person, Joanne, made this comment: "I really love wolves and feel so sorry for them. They always look like they want come in from the cold and be pets."

Another person, Nora, wrote, "[Hunters] kill with the excuse that there are too many [wolves]. There live also too many poeple on our planet: don't we have all the luck?" (The typos are Nora's)

Many environmentalists have expressed Nora's opinion that people don't have a place in the wildlife's habitat; in fact, the radical group the Center for Biological Diversity recently began distributing condoms wrapped in endangered-species-themed packages to "raise awareness about over population's serious impacts on our planet." "To read how anti-hunters really feel, check out http://wolfcomments.blogspot.com/. After appearing in National Geographic with a wolf he legally killed in Idaho, Robert Millage put up this blog to show the hate speech he's receiving from animal rights activists.)

So the anti-hunter's ideology can be anthropomorphic, but conversely it can also be anti-human. Their reaction to wolf No. 527's life story is a case in point. Wolf No. 527 left the Druid Peak pack and joined the rival Slough Creek pack in 2005. Later, no. 527 rose in the pack's hierarchy and bore pups. The pack's den was then attacked by another wolf pack. For 12 days, No. 527 and  probably four of the pack's other females and their pups were pinned inside their den. A PBS special documented this siege. Wolf No. 527 finally escaped. The pups didn't.

Not long after, 527 left the Sloughs and joined up with a male wolf in an area along Hellroaring Creek. That spring, they encountered a young wolf pair in the area. Wolf No. 527 and another wolf killed that female wolf in her den and carried out the wolf's pups and ate them.

"I've seen a lot out here," Lyman told the Los Angeles Times, "but I understood why 527 was doing what she did. Because she couldn't afford to have a pack that close to her territory."

Lyman and other activists seem able to understand a wolf's need to defend its food source, territory and right to exist, yet they somehow can't comprehend that people have these same needs and inherent rights.They actually give wolves, and other wildlife, more rights than humans.

This attitude is making responsible wolf management a constant uncertainty. At press time, a group of anti-hunting organizations, represented by the environmental law firm EarthJustice, was suing the USFWS and state game agencies to force them to again list the wolf in the northern Rockies as endangered. The suit was due to be heard by U.S. District Judge Donald Malloy this spring. The decision could go either way. Last year, Malloy overturned a decision to remove grizzlies from the ESA because he felt the decision didn't take the effect of global warming on grizzlies's food supply into consideration.

Therefore, the future of responsible wolf management remains far from certain.

Wolves Kill Jogger
On March 11 Alaska state troopers determined Candice Berner, a 32-year-old schoolteacher, was chased down and killed near Chignik Lake, Alaska, by wolves. According to the state medical examiner, the manner of death is "accidental" and the cause of death is "multiple injuries due to animal mauling."