View Full Version : Grizzly mauls sheepherder; kills dogs, sheep

September 17, 2009, 10:39 PM

Grizzly mauls sheepherder; kills dogs, sheep
Posted: Tuesday, Sep 15th, 2009
BY: Joy Ufford with Derek Farr

After what could be the first grizzly bear attack on a human in the Upper Green, a 46-year-old sheepherder was life-flighted to Idaho Falls early Monday morning after being seriously mauled.

The grizzly began its rampage in the early hours in a sheep herd grazing near Forest Road 617, at the eastern edge of the Gros Ventre Wilderness near Tosi Creek.

The herd is tended by Marcello Tejeda, of Rock Springs, and Jorge Mesa, both of whom were awakened by what they thought was a black bear in the sheep, according to their employer, rancher Mary Thoman of Fontenelle.

Monday, Thoman was concerned for Tejeda and her sheep, which have been harassed by predators all summer, she said.

“We have had a nightmare,” she said of the W&M Thoman Ranches’ forest allotments on the Upper Green. “Nothing but grizzlies and wolves all summer long.”

At 3:30, the Sublette County Sheriff’s Office received a call from Mesa that a bear had attacked a man and that an ambulance or doctor was needed to help him, according to preliminary reports.

Thoman said they have always had problems with black bears getting into the sheep but the grizzly situation has been worsening since 1998 when she said grizzlies were moved into that area from elsewhere.

“The dogs were raising heck and they thought it was a black bear,” Thoman said her sheepherder told her.

This was a grizzly sow with one cub, though, she was told. Thoman said she recently saw a collared grizzly sow with three cubs that had “just showed up” but didn’t know if they were the same animal.

The guard dogs stay with the sheep and protect them as best they can, she explained.

“Once they found out a bear was in the sheep the sheepherder (Tejeda) sent his (guard) dog in and the bear killed that one,” Bardin related .

Tejeda then sent in another guard dog and apparently was attacked by the bear when he tried to save the second dog, which was killed, he said.

The sheepherder received a seven-inch gash on top of his head, two punctures to the left side of his chest, three claw wounds to the right side of his abdomen and a puncture wound to his right wrist, early reports stated.

“This is the first human attack there that I can remember,” Bardin said.

Mesa used pepper spray – twice – to drive the bear away from Tejeda and then called Thoman for help.

Thoman said giving her sheepherders guns to shoot marauding predators isn’t a solution – “or we just have more trouble.”

Mesa then notified the sheriff’s office, and a team was sent in including an Emergency Medical Services unit, Kendall Valley Fire Department’s first-responders, three deputies and a Forest Service officer while Air Idaho, a search-and-rescue team and a doctor were put on standby.

Because of the poor travel conditions, a deputy drove Tejeda and Mesa (who had pepper spray in his eyes) out to a waiting ambulance and they were transported to the Pinedale Clinic.

Mesa’s eyes were cleaned and Tejeda was airlifted to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center (EIRMC) in Idaho Falls.

Tejeda was listed in “serious” condition Monday afternoon, according to EIRMC spokesperson Nancy Browne.

Wyoming Game & Fish team investigated the scene of the attack Monday.

“We’ve heard this person has been injured and that’s our primary concern,” said G&F spokesman Mark Gocke. “We hope he’s all right.”

Gocke had no further information Monday but said G&F is participating in the investigation and more details will be forthcoming.

Bad Summer

Predators have heavily targeted sheep and cattle on Upper Green permitted grazing allotments this year, according to Thoman.

Most of the publicly confirmed predations are sheep killed by wolves but there are plenty of others in the mountains.

Thoman said she can’t put a number to their losses yet, not until the herds are gathered and brought back home.

“What they verify doesn’t match up, though,” she said of investigating agencies.

“The trouble is by the time you notify them, if they don’t get there within three or four days they can’t confirm,” she said, adding other animals will feed on the carcasses.

“We just have to put up with them,” she said. “They need to put them away. They’re just getting too thick.”

Thoman said most people don’t realize how heavy livestock losses are in the Upper Green and public land managers seem to not care – “I think they’re just trying to get rid of us (livestock ranchers).”

Thoman doesn’t plan on giving in to bears, wolves or public agencies lightly, she said. Thoman sheep have grazed on the same allotments since 1978 and her family began ranching before 1900.

“It isn’t like we just sprang up,” she said.


On Aug. 6, Wildlife Services confirmed a grizzly had killed two head of cattle in the Upper Green.

In a slew of late July and August attacks in western Wyoming, wolves killed dozens of sheep, a handful of cattle and a half-dozen guard dogs, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reports.

Recent reports reveal lethal control efforts have removed 10 wolves to date from the Green River Pack and five from the Dog Creek Pack.

Thoman worries that wolves and bears have run the sheep around so much that right now without anyone up there to keep an eye on them, her herds could be scattered throughout the forest.

“I suppose we’ll be hunting sheep up there until Christmas,” she said.

No one from the Forest Service, which manages the grazing allotments, responded before press time.

September 17, 2009, 11:14 PM
Was bound to happen. F&G relocate "problem grizzlies" from other areas to the upper Green. Kinda like an Australia for grizzlies. Except without the ocean. Geez, I've never heard of sheepherders without rifles....

September 17, 2009, 11:40 PM
I thought the same thing... Why in the Hell didn't thet have at least one rifle?

September 18, 2009, 03:42 AM
I love her quote “It isn’t like we just sprang up,” she said

Hmm I do believe the Grizzly was there a LONG time before her ranch was there.

I sure as heck wouldn't have sent another dog in after I saw the first one get killed let alone go in and try to save the second one from the bear, nothing good could come of it.

September 18, 2009, 06:21 AM
I think what she is concerned about as far as rifles go is that if you kill a grizzly you are likely to have more interrogation than if you killed a human. Almost a lunatic element to the endangered species movement.
My friend went through that a few years ago.

September 18, 2009, 07:23 AM
Thoman said giving her sheepherders guns to shoot marauding predators isn’t a solution – “or we just have more trouble.”

I wonder if Tejeda agrees with that.

September 18, 2009, 07:49 AM
In a remote area, I'd have my 338-06, a Marlin 45-70, and my Bisley 45LC. I'd use my dogs to hunt 'em within 5 miles of my ranch. If the LE and WE have trouble getting in, they'll have trouble finding the dead bears. If they've got tracking collars, they'd be smashed on the closest rock and thrown in to the nearest body of water.

September 18, 2009, 09:06 AM
I wonder if Thoman has considered the potential lawsuit against her by her mauled employee, for depriving him of the means to combat a known threat.

Here's hoping he survives, to bring that suit.

September 18, 2009, 09:42 AM
I'll speculate that the "more touble" quote alludes to the sheepherders having a little firewater then possibly shooting stuff up........animals, each other.......

September 18, 2009, 10:19 AM
A while back in Momtana a man went out to run a bear out of his sheep pen, the bear attacked him, he shot and killed the bear and was charged with poaching. The reason behind the charge of poaching was he left the safty of his house. See any property rights going out the door using the endangered joke list???:mad::mad:

srt 10 jimbo
September 18, 2009, 11:32 AM
I really dont like to kill Bears, but if I'm just sitten there and a grizzly charges, There's no doubt in my mind whom the endangered species is.:D

September 18, 2009, 11:49 AM
This is why, whenever I go hunting in Brown or Griz country and there is a tag available without too much hassle I get one. Not that I spend any time actively hunting Brown/Griz, but if I have to shoot one I don't have to do any explainin.

September 18, 2009, 12:36 PM
We don't have grizzly tags here. Wish we did. I have flyfished that upper portion of the Green many times. I know exactly where her summer ranch is. I always get a black bear licence each year tho.
Less than 5 mi south of there is a public campground, prolly only used about 3-4mo out of the year because of early and late snows. but it tends to be a fairly heavily traveled area in the summertime.. Tosi creek is dense, and looks like classic griz country. I always wondered why the heck someone would run sheep there, much less cattle, because of the bears, and now the wolves, and the short lasting summer range. Would hardly be worth it , it seems. Cheap lease? But having no rifles is just plain stupid, period. Talk about lack of regard for the sheepherders and their dogs. I know of some Thomans that have a ranch and run sheep, cattle outside of Kemmerer, but none in Fontenelle. Maybe the next generation of them.

September 18, 2009, 01:04 PM
I went to high school with a Thoman in Green River, can't remember her first name though (class of 93').

September 18, 2009, 01:10 PM
According to this, the range of the Grizz is smaller than we think...

Old Grump
September 18, 2009, 01:40 PM
Thoman said giving her sheepherders guns to shoot marauding predators isn’t a solution – “or we just have more trouble.”

She is an idiot and will soon be herding her sheep by herself. Wonder how long it takes her to 'run' to the toy store and get herself a 45-70.

Double Naught Spy
September 18, 2009, 06:45 PM
The grizzly began its rampage in the early hours in a sheep herd grazing near Forest Road 617, at the eastern edge of the Gros Ventre Wilderness near Tosi Creek.

Nope, the grizzly was just hunting a target rich environment that had easy pickings. Then the herder sent in dogs to attack the grizzly and it defended itself. Then the herder went in and fearing the herder was attacking like the dogs, the grizzly stopped that threat as well.

That isn't to say that the grizzly didn't need to be put down or relocated for attacking the sheep, but saying it was on a rampage is a bit out of line. By her own description, the herder wife noted that the herd has been attacked numerous times around by bears and wolves. Something isn't right about that learning curve. Why would you send in only one dog at a time. Knowing the bear killed one and downed the other, why would you go in yourself without a vehicle or firearm?

Colorado Redneck
September 18, 2009, 09:41 PM
A few years ago a hunter in Southwestern Colorado killed a grizzly bear with an arrow in self defense. Got the [email protected]#$! scratched out of himself. Another hunter about 10 years ago was bear hunting in north central Colorado and shot a bear that was not a black bear. He took it to a Division of Wildlife station and the game warden said it was not a black bear, but would not identifiy it as a grizzly.

I suspect that many of us would be surprised at how wide ranging grizzly bears really are. Officials are probably reluctant to reveal the facts. Does not excuse any of the crap that goes on.

I thought the Fish and Wildlife Service was obligated to recompense ranchers for livestock that was killed by endangered species. I don't know how much it would cost to reimburse a rancher for a sheep herder. Those dogs can be pretty pricey though.;)

September 18, 2009, 10:33 PM
Never send a dog to do a guns job. Never hire an employee to look after your things that uyou do not trust with a gun.

Art Eatman
September 19, 2009, 09:18 AM
The absence of guns with the sheepherders has to to do with the trouble from the federal government if they kill a wolf or grizzly to protect the flock. The rancher and the herders will all get a bunch of grief. The rancher could lose the grazing rights, for example.

Basically, the ESA says that certain wildlife species are far more important than people and their livilihood. Just ask the farmers of California's Central Valley why they have 40% unemployment and food-producers are getting food from the food bank or food stamps. (This has been in the news for months; y'all already oughta be aware of it.)

http://www.rangemagazine.com has long exposed the unfairness of federal policies and laws toward farmers and ranchers in the west. There's a fairly-well coordinated effort to drive them not only out of business, but from the very land on which they've lived for generations.

September 19, 2009, 10:52 AM
Dandy example Art, the reintroduction of the Canadian wolf is just another example of a means to run the ranchers out of business, stop hunting and a whole slew of land grabbng all in the name of a wolf that was brought down to the lower 48 illegally. The USFWS and their partners, the Defenders of Wildlife have been running the show from the start and they still are. How can it be that everytime the USFWS goes to delist there is always some loophole which allows the Defenders of Wildlife to sue and have the wolves relisted. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, after the third or fourth delist/relist. Check out this info on "What they didn't tell you about wolf Recovery."




September 19, 2009, 11:22 AM
The absence of guns with the sheepherders has to to do with the trouble from the federal government if they kill a wolf or grizzly to protect the flock.

The trouble is if ranchers start to pre-emptively kill predator animals. This situation was very different. There was an attack. If a wild animal is actually attacking the flock, less alone a human, you shoot it.

September 19, 2009, 05:06 PM
It will come down to SSS, if it hasn't already. One thing they're also scaling back on is F&G officers.
And for the record, I've known many sheepherders that carried guns.

September 19, 2009, 05:47 PM
You know, I wrote a whole page on this before I pulled my head out and realized it had become a political post rather than anything to do w/ hunting. I think it is unfortunate that this happened but do not believe that many here have a real grasp on the issues at stake. Perhaps it should be moved to another venue so that wemight talk to the issues w/o getting slapped.

Lawyer Daggit
September 19, 2009, 09:24 PM
What is more important- Federal Wildlife laws or human occupational health and safety?

I agree, sending shepherds out without at least a rifle for personal safety is crazy.

If she is worried about shepherds shooting Bear at long range why not provide them with a shotgun with rifled slugs?

September 19, 2009, 10:04 PM
Sounds like a useful life for retired police 870's to me- stoked with slugs.

Art Eatman
September 19, 2009, 11:19 PM
Seems to me that while we've spoken more to ranching than hunting, this issue of ESA protection affects hunters and/or hunting guides as well. Yes, it's political, but it does directly affect us as hunters.

As long as folks stay courteous and polite and focussed, omitting a bunch of anecdotal vignettes and "merely noise" harumphing, I don't see why we can't let it run for a while.

September 20, 2009, 12:00 AM

First, Most of the shepherds in this state are aliens. Basque more accurately. Legal or not?? Legal to posess fireams??? Not much chance of them sueing Ms. Thoman. They work for about $6-800 clams per month plus food. These workers would normally have a hard time even expressing themselves to the authorities as most don't even speak english. How in the world could they maintain their composure in the world of lawyers?

Secondly, I am no fan of ranching per se..but, they should not have to protect their livestock w/ weapons. We taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill over this. More subsidies,,welfare if you ask me. We allready pay for govt trappers to do this. They have been actively killing wolves in the aforementioned areas for about 5 years now. We also have been being taxed in record setting totals($) to protect livestock the last few years.

Thirdly, the bears were here first. Yep, true, the rest of us immigrants need to clear out. I'll follow you.

Fourth, The Feds have mandated we have the critters, they have imposed a back east and west mentality on the cute and fuzzy little guys and yet reject any management plan that the State of Wyoming has put forth while mandating we take them over. I personally want to see beavers resettled back into the Potomac river, and see their slides and cut down trees there,,it's only natural, right? I don't care if it looks like crap.

Fifth, the State G&F has little input in this,,see number four. Also, Wyomings' G&F is controlled by the top, most powerful ranchers in the state. If they could, we would wipe them out again(wolves). Meanwhile, they look at us hunters as pondscum because we wanted a right to carry a sidearm while bow hunting. They would change that rule back if they could. Our local division is growing in personnell by 2-3 officers and biologists each year.

Lastly, I think it is a crying shame that we hunters have to fear,,yes fear for our safety, (personal or financial) based off of the fact that we choose to recreate somewhere other than the local tavern. I have friends who have their camps raided by bears, regularly. Take all of the necessary precautions people.

The reality of the situation is this: We hunters will continue to be pawns in a much larger game while all of the players take our money in the form of taxes, licenses, etc. I believe it will take real activism on our part to maintain our way of life and liberty. This crosses political boundaries folks. It really is important to you as a hunter to follow what changes take place in this nation.


September 20, 2009, 03:25 AM
Do we know if Mesa and Tejeda are legal citizens?

This sounds to me like it could be a case of an employer taking advantage of illegal aliens. How many folks would accept working such a job unarmed??

Fortunately, reports say that Tejeda is expected to recover. According to reports, it was 2 am in the morning, and Tejeda approaching the mother grizzly and her cubs as they were busily feeding on a carcass.

He really is very lucky to be alive, in my opinion. You get between a mother Grizzly and her feeding her cubs, and you are asking to be removed from the gene pool.

See this updated report:


What should the Game and Fish Department do about this mother grizzly?


Art Eatman
September 20, 2009, 10:15 AM
I've never understood the "bears were here first" basis for controlling humans. We should quit growing wheat and corn and give all that land back to the bison?

Strong homo sap groups run off weak homo sap groups. Been going on since Noah's Ark ran aground. But strong or weak, homo sap's gotta make a living, and critters gotta give way. That's called "reality" as well as "history".

Only an uber-rich society where luxurious living is the norm--and that's for sure the U.S. of A.--can try to mess around and shun reality via laws and regulations.

So a generation moved in and created an eco-system suitable for raising beef and mutton to feed people. And wool for clothing. Now, for the third or fourth generation of those providers, our own government is instituting a reversion of a healthy eco-system into an unhealthy eco-system.

Over time, then, as the little towns dry up and as farmers and ranchers are forced out by economic hard times, how do we as hunters have access to local knowledge and local infrastructure support when on our hunting trips?

September 20, 2009, 10:44 AM
Maybe this was a wake-up call on priorities. I would bet she didn't want to deal with the feds over shooting wolves or bears while protecting her livestock that are protected under the endangered joke list. Why has the ESA become a joke? Because of the abuses of this law and its intentions. Through the ESA the Canadian Gray wolf was introduced. The Canadian Gray wolf was not even close to extinction in the USA. Most states had a spattering of their native wolves, which if left alone would have repopulated into a viable native wolf population. Instead, the Canadian Gray was introduced. A wolf that has killed the native wolves, decimated the big game herds, killed livestock whether on public or private land, and in many cases no action has been taken to correct the problem wolves. No management of wolves period. The feds and the Defenders of Wildlife brought these wolves into the lower 48 illegally, they have lied and cheated from the very start and still are. Why are they above the law???:mad::mad: Because no one is holding them accountable.

September 20, 2009, 01:46 PM
There are a couple million people living throughout the whole wolf recovery area, it doesn't make much sense to me to talk about giving it back the predators.

In my opinion the predators should be managed to fit into the modern world in a manner that's compatable with the last 70 years of history in the west.

September 20, 2009, 03:02 PM
“We have had a nightmare,” she said of the W&M Thoman Ranches’ forest allotments on the Upper Green. “Nothing but grizzlies and wolves all summer long.”

So why would you continue to place your sheep and cattle in a area that you know contains wolves and grizzlies? It's a wilderness area, where else should the large carnivores be? It's not like the bear left the wilderness area and went down to the ranch house and did this.
On the other hand, just kill all of the predators,cougars,bears,wolves and wolverines.Then you can start on the bocats,coyotoe' fox',pine martins.Then it will be safe for the Sierra Club members.

September 20, 2009, 04:04 PM
So why would you continue to place your sheep and cattle in a area that you know contains wolves and grizzlies?

You have to realize that these ranchers have been leasing the allotments for many years. Change to their business doesn't just happen. They will go until it becomes economically unfeasible. That means that the government either, quits paying them for their losses or ceases to lease that piece of ground. Other allotments don't just spring up.You can't just up and move 1000 sheep somewhere easily. There has to be somewhere for them to go.
You also have to understand ranching here. Few ranchers have enough deeded ground to justify the size of herds they maintain.. By leasing government land they are able to feed their cattle/sheep very cheaply on you and my public land grasses. They pay a pittance for this as compared to what it would actually feed the animals or to purchase deeded acreage to do the same. Then with the government paying depredation payments to them, they do well.

It would be like the government paying you an extra $10.00 per hour on top of what your employer pays you. You would be hesitant to make any changes also.

It is a shame that these men got caught up in this. I also don't blame them on the dog part. I had a guy give me a bunch of crap about my Labrador being in my bow hunting camp as he thought it inhumane for me to tie him up during the day while I hunted. He was sure a bear or cat would come into my camp an eat him. Also he commented that if a bear or cat approached at night, that my dog would take the brunt of the attack. I calmly agreed, and then reminded him that while I love my dog, at the end of the day,,better him than me.

Art Eatman
September 20, 2009, 04:36 PM
The government set up the whole leasing system for BLM and Forest Service lands in the 1800s. People thus developed lifestyles and occupations in accordance with government policy.

"Multiple Use" has since become a mantra in recent decades, adding recreation and wildlife preservation, after over a century of mostly just mining, logging and ranching--and, of course, hunting.

Now there has been change in the policy, but the consequences to the people of the area have not been honestly addressed. People who have acted in good faith are bearing the brunt of the changes, with no recompense for the negative impacts on their lives.

A rancher may have what's believed to be a low-cost per-acre lease, but he has to invest in any pens, water wells and troughs, and fencing. Private-land leases have all those items included. And, in general, public lands don't have the carrying capacity as the private lands of the more eastern and southern states. East of I-35 and south of I-30, it doesn't take but a few acres per cow/calf (animal unit) whereas in much of the federal areas it's 20 to 40 or more acres per animal unit. Some public lands (and private lands in western Texas) can run as many animal units per section as there are inches of annual rainfall--and a section is 640 acres.

Generally, ranching is one of the lowest rates of return on the investment value for any occupation there is. Well, this side of picking up aluminum cans along a highway. Bottomline net/net on a feeder calf is not much over $100, time you amortize the mama cow and figure all the expenses. In modern America, $100K is just a "decent" income, not wealth. So if you're in 30-acre country and wanna make $100K, you're needing how many acres? 30,000? Sounds big, doesn't it?

Which, Dearly Beloved, is why those ranchers who can do so will shift some focus onto high-dollar deer hunts. Much better cash flow for not near as much work.

September 21, 2009, 10:19 AM
I am curious as to the specific dog breed.

September 21, 2009, 12:28 PM

I have been trying to stay out of the back and forth of this thread but your post urges me to jump in.

You make some wild assertions that don't pass the smell test.

Do you have any facts or sources to back up your statements about remnant populations, the introduction of the Canadian wolf or the purported illegality?

I didn't think so.

However, if you do, I'd appreciate you coughing them up. I'm not sayin' your wrong, I'm just tryin' to keep it real...........

September 21, 2009, 08:22 PM
Most states had a spattering of their native wolves

It's long been a contention at least in our State,,via the ranching industry that wolves allready existed in our ecosystem. Proof, pretty hard to come by unfortunately.

I would bet she didn't want to deal with the feds over shooting wolves or bears while protecting her livestock that are protected under the endangered joke list.
I would agree w/ this whole heartedly. I would venture a guess that these type of events are investigated w/ all the interest of many murder scenes. The difference being that the accused had better have a pile of physical evidence on his behalf.

why those ranchers who can do so will shift some focus onto high-dollar deer hunts. Much better cash flow for not near as much work.

Which definitely points to maintaining a viable relationship w/ the locals as opposed to corporate ranching. Even though I've said some strong things about them here, I realize they aren't necessarily wealthy. I once gained access to a ranch for a moose hunt by supplying the rancer a method to purchase a part for his swather at a very discounted price due to my connections in the hydraulic supply industry. I also fixed his hired hands' transmission. Amazing how well a turbo 400 shifts once you put vacuum to it.

Again, we as hunters owe it to ourselves to get involved whenever you see notice for a public meeting, get a public comment card in the mail and also challenge the State and Feds in a decent manner.
I once got a inpromptu meeting w/ 7 officials from the local Forest Service office over a road closure program. I did this by walking in the front door on a Tuesday morning. Of course I prefaced it w/ a letter to the editor of the Saratoga Sun, two weeks before.

Double Naught Spy
September 21, 2009, 09:17 PM
It's long been a contention at least in our State,,via the ranching industry that wolves allready existed in our ecosystem. Proof, pretty hard to come by unfortunately.

Interesting. I am looking at the 1959 edition of "Mammals of North America" by Hall and Kelson. It is a two volume set that is pretty much nothing but geographic distributions and records with some brief taxonomic descriptions. H&K show records of 3 subspecies of wolves in Wyoming that have been documented historically.

September 21, 2009, 09:52 PM
Agree with the wolf in Wyo population.

Did water resources research work in the back country from Meeteetse to Dubois to Pinedale for about 6 years in the eighties.

Never actually saw a wolf in that time but saw lots of sign and heard lots of lore from the ranchers. Particularly at the top of the Greybull River drainage and the headwaters of the Wind River north and east of Dubois.

I don't understand why Wyo cannot work out their deal with the FED to put in a season the way Montana and Idaho have.

September 22, 2009, 01:38 PM

Nice to hear from you,,,,Throughout Washington we have had wolves from as far back as I can remember, and that is quite along time. Montana, Wyoming,Idaho, and other states had wolves. I am sure if you spend a little time researching you will find that what I am saying is true. Below is just a small portion of information on the lies that were told in order to introduce the Canadian wolves. To get the full picture of deception concerning the Canadian wolf introduction, pull up the site below. wolfbait

F&G Illegally Agreed To Canadian Transplants I.C. Sec. 36-715(2) expressly prohibited IDFG from entering into any agreement with any entity of the U.S. Government concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute but that law had already been brazenly violated by IDFG Director Jerry Conley. On September 27, 1994, without authorization from

ure or even the full Oversight Committee, Conley signed a letter to Bangs supporting the FWS Experimental Rule and agreeing to work with FWS to reintroduce wolves from British Columbia and Alberta into the Idaho experimental population area. On that same day, Conley als

o Bangs in Boise, signed by IDFG Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker, authorizing FWS to "rel

ximum of 15 Canadian wolves in Central Idaho for u

ears or until 2 breeding pairs are each documented to produce 2 or more pups that survive until 31 December for two consecutive years." The permit stated that the wolf releases would be conducted in accordance with the Idaho wolf management plan. Idaho AG, Congress Ignore False EIS Info Although the plan was soundly rejected b

ure, Bangs and FWS went ahead and conducted the wolf release – legally from their standpoint – with the signed agreement endorsing the Nonessential Experimental Option and Rules and the signed Wolf Release Permit both in their possession. On January 25, 1995, Idaho Attorney General Alan Lance was provided with documentation of the misinformation and Code violations but no action was taken against Conley or any of the Oversight Committee members who authorized illegal issuance of the agreements. contthe Legislat o delivered a Special Permit t ease a ma p to five y y the Legislat inued on page 6



September 22, 2009, 09:31 PM
I am curious as to the specific dog breed.

It would be a pretty safe bet that they were Great Pyrenees. Fairly atypical sheep dogs around here with the exception that most shepherds have another "herder" type dog around.
You have to realize that the Pyrenees think they are large sheep w/ teeth. They typically protect the flock from coyotes, etc. Not much of a match for a mama griz though.

September 22, 2009, 10:19 PM
I don't understand why Wyo cannot work out their deal with the FED to put in a season the way Montana and Idaho have.

Waterengineer,,,Wyoming did come up with their own wolf plan, which the USFWS aproved but the Defenders of Wildlife didn't like it. The Defenders of wildlife seem to be running the wolf show along with USFWS who leave loopholes in all of their delisting plans. As you can see it does not matter what or who's wolf plan it is, the goal pole keeps getting moved by the environmentalists and and any judge they can find that will believe their lies.:mad:

September 23, 2009, 08:33 AM
Thanks Elkman, I kinda figured they might be pyrenees.

Sounds like they were a couple of hard Pyrs at that, which makes the loss even harder.

September 23, 2009, 10:13 PM
Interesting article I found that some folks here might be interested in reading.

Crying Wolf Again - The Federal Cover-Up

Rep. Joe Balyeat

"Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence" (Henri
Frederic Amiel)

Federal wildlife biologists have taken much criticism lately for their sins
of commission-falsifying lynx evidence where there were no lynx. But even
more disastrous than their sins of commission, are their sins of omission.
MT House FWP Chairman Dan Fuchs has obtained hard evidence of the following:

1)The Feds have known since 1997 that elk calf ratios were being totally
decimated in areas of high wolf concentration.

2)When MT FWP personnel attempted to release this evidence to the public,
the Feds aggressively barred MT FWP from doing so.

Beginning in 1997, Carrie Schaefer did a study of Yellowstone wolf/elk
interaction entitled "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Wintering Elk
Abundance and Composition, and Wolf Response." Amongst other things, her
study revealed that areas of high wolf concentration inside Yellowstone had
calf ratios dropping precipitously - 0 to 10 calves per 100, even while the
ratio outside high wolf concentration areas remained at 46 calves per 100!
When MT FWP biologist Tom Lemke and others made written request for
permission to release this data to the public; the Fed response to suppress
it was swift, aggressive, and sustained. On 2/18/99, Yellowstone
Supervisory Biologist Glenn Plumb wrote: "It is my position, after
reviewing Ms. Schaefer's investigation, that her raw data do not warrant
full distribution to the public" On 3/18/99, in an interoffice Memo, Plumb
again denied the request: "Regarding your request for elk classification
data generated through Carrie Schaefer's ongoing research.we were remiss in
presenting Ms. Schaefer's.data in the Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual
Report." And they were able to hide this striking wolf predation in the
annual reports because they only gave averages for the entire northern herd
- when the 0 calf ratios in high wolf areas were averaged with the 46 calf
ratios from elsewhere, the average was still up near the 30 calf ratio
needed to sustain herd viability.

Of course, the Feds rationalized their suppression by saying that
Schaefer's study was just raw data and still ongoing. Yet even after her
report was completed the Feds never publicized nor (to our knowledge) ever
gave permission to MT FWP to release the information. In fact, one MT FWP
biologist who is directly involved with decisions related to Yellowstone
elk has stated that the data was so well suppressed that he hasn't even
seen it. Rep. Fuchs only got a copy of Schaefer's study and the related
inter-agency letters after aggressively demanding copies of all documents
related to the incident.

Last winter when Fuchs, myself, and other officials did our own elk calf
survey we discovered the calf ratio had plummeted. The initial response
from amateur wolf advocates and some professional biologists was, "These
guys are hacks and don't know how to count". After the official elk census
came out and totally substantiated our claims, they changed their tune.
They said, "OK, they're right about the drop, but we can't prove it's due
to wolves. It could be drought or hard winters, etc."

Yet the Schaefer study strongly implicates wolves as the significant factor
in two different ways. First, geographically - during the course of the
same winter, she observed alarmingly low calf ratios in high wolf areas
even while calf ratios remained above average outside high wolf areas. This
mitigates against the notion that the low calf ratios are caused by drought
or hard winters.

Secondly, when coupled with current data for the entire Northern
Yellowstone elk herd; an alarming pattern is revealed. In 1997 and 98, the
low calf ratio was confined to areas of high wolf concentration - the Lamar
Valley, etc. In this last year or so, as dense wolf populations have
reached critical mass across the entire northern Yellowstone Range; we
"surprisingly" see the area of low calf ratio also expand to encompass the
entire herd.

Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago
that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding
machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population
increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data from
the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify this same
34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional wildlife
biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000% increase in
population size every 8 years!

If the Feds continue to break promises, suppress evidence, and drag their
feet for 3-5 more years; our wildlife and livestock may need to be placed
on the Endangered Species List by then (never mind our pet dogs, llamas,
and small children). I repeat - we are not calling for eradication of
wolves. We are simply saying that NOW is the time for the Feds to move
immediately to de-list the wolf; so that MT, Wyoming, and Idaho state Fish
& Game Departments can manage wolves like any other species. It's time for
the Feds to make up for past sins (of commission and omission) by turning
over wolf decisions to more trustworthy managers.


September 23, 2009, 10:29 PM
I don't see the fascination with the wolf. It's curious that the anti-hunters don't mind the thought of a wolf eating a calf still half alive but have conniptions if a hunter kills a grown bull.

The effect of the wolves on the elk population in Mt. is well known among outfitters.

I wonder if the Federal government cares what a big part of the economy of these states hunting is.

September 24, 2009, 10:50 AM
I think the USFWS needs an overhaul, put people in charges who have the wellfare of all wildlife at heart and not just what the enviromentalists think they can make a buck on. The more controversy a species issue creates, the more money the environmentalists can beg out of people that don't know any better. Imagene the money that they have slurped out of the wolf issue. Like the USFS who would rather chase "endangered species" than put up timber sales. The USFS Has their own wildlife department that has been caught lying and planting evidence of an animal to stop timber sales or have them thrown out. At some point in time there needs to be an overhaul of the crooked practices of today. wolfbait