Graybeard Outdoors (GBO Reloaded)
State, Regional, Country Specific Forums => Montana => Topic started by: JimFromTN on December 13, 2010, 04:09:13 AM
-
I am not from Montana but I have visted the state on a few occasions. I would love to be able to go up and hunt Montana sometime. The last time I was there, I was in the Bitter Root Valley and I those people don't seem too fond of the wolf which I can certainly understand. I thought it was great when Monatana opened up hunting of the wolf. I was truly disappointed to hear that they were put back on the endangered list. I was watching a show on the Outdoor Channel yestarday about the wolf wars. They made the case very well that the numbers of wolves have reached the required limit to take them off of the endangered species list but the anti wolf hunters got it back into court and got them relisted. Everyone wants to blame the anti-hunters when the problems seems to be Wyoming. Wyoming is what got them relisted. Out of 3 states, Wyoming seems to be unwilling to come up with a management plan. If Wyoming was willing to adapt Montana's plan for wolf management then everything would fall into place and wolf hunting could be opened back up. I don't get what Wyoming's problem is. Maybe I have this all wrong but instead of blaming the anit-hunters, maybe people should be focusing on Wyoming and how to convince or possibly force them to adopt a valid wolf management plan. I think people have to accept the fact that the wolf is here to stay and we have a choice to either manage them and keep their numbers in check or we can can choose to not manage them and have them remain on the endagered species list and allow their numbers to get out of control. Eventually their numbers will get under control under the non managed plan once there are no more elk for them to eat.
-
I suppose I should do some research here before I answer, but will do it anyway from memory.
As I recall Wyoming objected from the start to the reintroduction of wolves.
Wyoming objected saying that the wolf was extinct in Wyoming.
Wyoming objected when told the wolves would only be introduced into Yellowstone Park and not allowed out side the Park.
Wyoming objected when thr type of wolf that was selected for introduction was the Canadian Timber wolf and not the smaller Rocky Mountain Wolf that still existed in MT and ID and are now believe to have been wiped out by the much larger Canadian wolf.
Wyoming objected when the Wolf packs started expanding and moving out of the park into WY, MT and ID, and it was decide that a small population would be allowed to exist.
Wyoming has had the wolf crammed down their throat and have stood their ground from the start.
The wolf packs that started in Yellowstone have expanded over 350 miles into Oregon and Washington state. The Packs in ID and Montana are strong healthy. The are not migratory but a bit nomadic.
Answer this what do the few wolves in WY have to do with the large expanding wolf populations in MT, ID, OR or WA. Why should those state who have provided the required management plans not be be allowed to proceed with the their plans. What bearing does WY no management plan have on those plans.
The seems to be only one reason for the Anti wolf folks objecting...the want total protection of a very dangerous animal.
-
So in other words, Wyoming would rather have their elk herds decimated than to play ball and come up with a management plan. Kind of reminds me of my ex-wife for some reason. I don't know, but shooting yourself in the foot to make a point doesn't seem like that great of an idea to me. It seems like they are stamping their feet like little children thinking thats going to somehow make the wolves go away. At some point people have to accept they are here and thats not going to change. By doing what they are doing, they are playing into the hands of the anti-hunters and if the anti-hunters get their way, they will double the number of wolves that is required to get them off the list. If everyone is willing to play ball, the judge will take the wolf off the list and the states will be able to keep their numbers under control. The judge has already proven that he will. Its time to stop pouting like children and get control of the situation.
-
Okay, so you say Wyoming, isn't playing ball, They have their reason. Fine penalize WY for it, why penalize MT and ID for it.
-
Because you can't delist a species in one state and not in another. Its either endangered or not. You also have the issue with Idaho. Although Idaho has a plan, its pretty much to kill any wolf outside of yellowstone which would put the wolf right back on the list again. If it got relisted because the states killed too many, they would end up increasing the number needed to get them off the list.
-
I don't want to start a real war here just express my thoughts. I live in the Northeast part of Minnesota. We have always had wolves, since the beginning of time. I am old enough to have shot wolves for the bounty. Minnesota has 1500 breeding pairs according to the latest information I have. 3000+ wolves is more that the other lower 47 states put together. Federal trappers and hunters take approximately 200 wolves annually due to livestock depredation. The lowest population estimates were 750 at the time they were declared an endangered species. I also live close to the Canadian border. Canada has never declared them an endangered species, they are fair game. I see and hear them on a regular basis. They will need to consume 16-20 adult whitetail deer annually. I live in an intensive harvest area. I am allowed to take 1 buck and 6 does, if I buy the license. I can't blame lack of success deer hunting, on the wolves. I think that habitat is the issue, not wolf depredation. I also realize that they will eat your pets, as I have friends who have lost pets to them. They took down an old bald eagle nest near here that had 13 dog and cat collars in it. It's not just wolves that will take your pets. I do think that the control should be turned over to the state and that we should be allowed to hunt them. I have to be careful fox and coyote hunting. I find it interesting that if you check the state forums Minnesota, doesn't have much on it about wolves, compared to any other state. Is it because we have never been without them? My personal thoughts are that, the whole issue really is much to do about nothing.
-
Curteric, comparing whitetail and elk is like comparing apples and oranges. The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks numbers on game populations and the reduced number of licenses issued speak for themselves. As Double D pointed out, this is not the same species of wolf that originally existed here. If the antis truly cared about wolves they would have protected the wolves that were here to begin with. We all know that protecting wolves is not their goal. Wolves are just a tool for them to further their agenda. I'm happy that things are working out in Minnesota, but I have seen the drastic drop in mule deer, moose and elk populations with my own eyes here. Maybe the anits should start having our problem grizzlies transplanted to states like Tennessee and Minnesota and see how well that goes over. ;D
-
Because you can't delist a species in one state and not in another. Its either endangered or not. You also have the issue with Idaho. Although Idaho has a plan, its pretty much to kill any wolf outside of yellowstone which would put the wolf right back on the list again. If it got relisted because the states killed too many, they would end up increasing the number needed to get them off the list.
Faulty logic. What you are saying is wolves can never be relisted because they are still endangered in TN.
-
No, because the grey wolf never existed in TN. The red wolf existed in TN which was re-introduced the same time the grey wolf was re-introduced out west. It was also re-introduced into NC, SC, MS, FL, and LA. Yes, the red wolf should stay on the endangered species list until the entire species has recovered, not just those in particular states.
-
Anyone ever stop and think, the Enviromental Impact Statement was never done, prior to the Canadian Grey Wolf being brought into the US, let alone being transplanted into the areas they were. If you or I were to have done this, not only would we be responsible for capturing the ones we brought in, but the off spring as well and would have been made to remove them back to where they came from.
Gee what would happen if we brought several mating pairs of Kodiak Brown Bears which is a much larger cousin into the lower 48.
I don't believe Wyoming has anything to do with this, in the first place. The anti's file law suites every time something gets delisted. And everytime one of these law suites is brought up by the "Enviro Groups" U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy sides with them. The "Enviro Groups" ie "Greenies" or what ever you want to call them, have plenty of money that backs them from outside the areas.
Because you can't delist a species in one state and not in another. Its either endangered or not. You also have the issue with Idaho. Although Idaho has a plan, its pretty much to kill any wolf outside of yellowstone which would put the wolf right back on the list again. If it got relisted because the states killed too many, they would end up increasing the number needed to get them off the list.
You mean to tell me that we have to wait until the wolves live back in New York City to delist them. Or until they transplant the Grizzly bear back into Calififronia that we can not delist them? After all the last grizzly killed there was 1922.
No JimFromTN we here in Montana, should not have to wait until the wolves are thriving in other places to manage them though controled hunting. Ask yourselves this question..... Why is Alaska allowed to control their wolves, but yet other states are not allowed to control the wolves with in their boundries?
-
The wolf existed in the region for millions of years and the elk, mule deer, and white tail never went extinct. How much more of an environmental impact study do you need. For one, the kodiak bear never existed in the lower 48 so you would be introducing a new species. Also, I don't know that its dietary needs could be met. They are a coastal bear and feed largely on fish. The Federal Government isn't transplanting but rather re-introducing. There is a big difference between the two. Re-introducing means putting something back into the environment that co-existed there before. Transplanting means introducing a new species like the european boar and the starling in this country. The English transplanted the starling because they like to eat them. When was the last time you had a black bird pie?
By the way, I would have no problem with re-introducing the grizzly back into California or the wolf into New York. In TN, we have re-introduced the Red Wolf, Black Bear, and Elk. We have a species of panther coming back as well which was not re-introduced. Its doing it on its own.
As for Alaska, they have 10,000 wolves. The Rocky Mountain states have around 1500 divided up amongst them. One state could affect the entire recovery program of the wolves in the Rockys which seems to be the hope of many in those states which is why you are having such a hard time delisting them. You are your own worst enemy and you are going to continue to lose the fight as a result of it. You are the proof the anti-hunters need to keep the wolf listed and they appreciate your hard work.
-
The wolf existed in the region for millions of years and the elk, mule deer, and white tail never went extinct. How much more of an environmental impact study do you need. For one, the kodiak bear never existed in the lower 48 so you would be introducing a new species. Also, I don't know that its dietary needs could be met. They are a coastal bear and feed largely on fish. The Federal Government isn't transplanting but rather re-introducing. There is a big difference between the two. Re-introducing means putting something back into the environment that co-existed there before. Transplanting means introducing a new species like the european boar and the starling in this country. The English transplanted the starling because they like to eat them. When was the last time you had a black bird pie?
This is not the same wolf that was here originally and it appears to be having a very different impact. Cottonwoods comparison to the brown bear is perfect. Its the equivalent of introducing brown bears to an area that once held black bears. It probably not going to work out too well. You pointed out yourself that they reintroduced the red wolf, not just any wolf, to your area. If you lived here and saw the effects the wolves are having on game populations I think you would see things differently.
-
Here In Mn the wolf should be delisted. If the Feds are taking 200 a year due to depredation, the state could be selling License and making money. Instead of the Feds paying someone to eliminate them. I know that whitetails are not Elk, Mule Deer,Moose. Here in Mn the 3000+ wolves eat 60,000+ deer and maybe a few Moose We kill allot more with automobiles, and hunters take a quarter of a million plus annually. What got our Moose herd a number of years ago were Ticks. They caused the moose to rub their hair off and with no insulation they froze. Seeing a hairless Moose is quite a sight. If the western states have a total wolf population of 1500, and they eat 30,000 Elk, Mulies and Moose, how does that compare to road kills, and the take by hunters? This is why I see game populations as more of a Habitat issue than a wolf issue.
-
Since I haven't heard anyone else from Wyoming chime in on this I'll go ahead and, to quote the guy from Tennessee, "stamp my feet" a little bit. Wyoming actually had/has a wolf management plan in place that is pretty similar to the Idaho plan. The wolf would be protected and hunted as trophy game in the "Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem", which essentially includes the entire western 1/3 of the state outside of the Park boundaries. Outside of the above mentioned ecosystem the wolf would be treated as a predator, just like coyotes. The predator part is where the wheels fall off with the wolf lovers. The plan was actually put into use for about a week until enough complaining from environmentalist groups convinced Justice Molloy to relist the wolves.
I would also like to point out to Jim from TENNESSEE who doesn't have to live with this decision, that the Canadian Grey Wolf that was transplanted into the place where I live never existed here in the first place. Thus, as others have already pointed out, the animal was not reintroduced. The analogy of the coastal brown bear fits exactly. They have introduced an animal to an ecosystem where its closest relative, which was much smaller and slower, has been extinct for decades and it has wreaked havoc on a population of elk that have never known the animal existed.
My whole issue with the wolf is not so much the wolf and its effect on our elk herds, but rather with the fact that the decisions being made regarding the wolf in this state are being made by people who don't have to live with the decisions. I would wager that most of the people who advocate the wolf's status as endangered have never witnessed first-hand an elk, a moose, or a family pet being killed by a pack of them, as many people in ID, MT, and WY have in recent years.
-
Well, I guess you all can drop the part about predator control or you can keep stomping your feet and see where that gets you. You can't rely on the politicians. It does not matter who gets elected because it isn't going to change anything. It was not that long ago that there was a republican president, senate, congress, and supreme court and it did not change anything. The battle over whether or not the wolf gets re-introduced is over. Quit crying about it and move on to the next fight which is getting them delisted so they can be managed.
-
My opinion is that the ESA is now being used in a way that has little to do with wildlife management. For instance, the feds are listing the polar bear even though populations are healthy and unregulated hunting of both sexes and all ages is allowed (provided the hunting is only done by people who meet federal criteria, but that is not very closely monitored). The listing pressure is based upon computer models that apparently say that given the chosen model inputs there will be a total elimination of polar bear habitat when global warming kicks in. I am not making this up!
So perhaps there will be restrictions related to wolves or even polar bears put on hunters, farmers or others in TN, WY or anywhere. Anything can happen given how the ESA is now being used. Someone might make the case that what is occurring is more of a class war between urban intellectuals and government employees on one side and rural white Americans on the other side, but I will not try to make that case.
-
This news footage is from December 2007 from Alaska, JimFromTN should we wait for this to happen in our areas before the Federal Government will delist them?
Action against these wolves needs to be controled now, by the states that have them.
Just in case you need pictures to see just how they do attack.
http://www.katahdinsshadow.com/amazing/wolves.php
Just this last hunting season, we had two hunters that had to defend themselves against such a pack of wolves.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/05/montana-elk-hunters-shoot-wolf/
Enough is enough.
-
Coming soon to a forst near your. http://helenair.com/news/local/article_a81d0bb2-0d9c-11e0-a1cd-001cc4c03286.html
Planned suit calls for return of wolves across US
Planned suit calls for return of wolves across US
By MATTHEW BROWN Associated Press helenair.com | Posted: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:23 am | (14) Comments
BILLINGS — Environmentalists said Tuesday they intend to sue the Obama administration to force it to restore gray wolves across the lower 48 states — even as Republicans in Congress sought unsuccessfully to strip the animals of protection.
The Center for Biological Diversity said in a formal notice to the Interior Department that it will sue the agency in 60 days unless the government crafts a plan to bring back wolves throughout their historical range.
“Wolves once roamed nearly the whole country and down into Mexico, but at this point they’re just in a fraction of that range,” said Noah Greenwald, director of endangered species for the Center for Biological Diversity.
About 6,000 wolves live in the lower 48 states. They are protected from hunting except in Alaska.
Biologists for the Arizona-based group argue there is enough wild habitat to support thousands of wolves in New England and New York, the southern Rocky Mountains, parts of Colorado and the Cascade Range of Oregon and Washington.
But prospects for new wolf packs in other parts of the country are uncertain at best, given how polarized the debate over wolves has become in recent months.
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has pushed to end federal protections for wolves and turn over control of the animals to states. Lawmakers from states where wolves already roam say there are too many of the predators.
On Tuesday, Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, tried to force a full Senate vote on a bill to strip wolves nationwide of federal protections.
The measure was backed by Republicans in Wyoming and Utah, but failed in the face of Democratic objections.
Wolves were poisoned and trapped to near-extermination in the United States in the last century. They have bounced back in some wilderness areas over the last few decades, in part through government-sponsored reintroduction programs.
Crapo said the growing population of wolves in the Northern Rockies — more than 1,700 at the end of 2009 — was harming big game herds and domestic livestock.
“The longer we wait to resolve this issue, the more difficult it’s going to be,” he said.
But Sen. Benjamin Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, said the Republican bill would undermine the Endangered Species Act. He criticized what he called an attempt “to solve politically what should be done by good science.”
Cardin suggested he would support a compromise pushed by Montana lawmakers and the administration that would limit the scope of the bill to include only wolves in the Northern Rockies.
Crapo said that proposal was unacceptable because it would have forced Idaho to change the way it manages the animals.
Public hunts for wolves were allowed briefly in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming in recent years. Those were halted after the federal government was rebuffed by the courts in several attempts to take the animal off the endangered list.
Judges have ruled that the government has not proved existing wolf numbers would ensure the population’s long-term survival.
Wolves are notorious predators. Experts say they could survive in most of the country if they were allowed. But a hunger for livestock often gets the animals into trouble, particularly in the Northern Rockies where ranches and wolf territories often overlap.
Young adult wolves sometimes travel hundreds of miles when looking to establish a new territory. In the last several years, packs have gained a toehold in parts of Oregon and Washington. Others have been spotted in Colorado, Utah and northern New England.
“We’ve learned from where wolves have been reintroduced that they have a tremendous benefit,” Greenwald, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said. “They force elk to move around more, which allows riparian vegetation to come back and increases songbirds, and they control coyote populations.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently analyzing research into wolf genetics to see how populations in different parts of the country relate to one another.
Agency spokesman Chris Tollefson on Tuesday said the effort is not part of a nationwide recovery plan, but declined to say if it could be used for such an effort in the future.
He said results of the agency’s work are expected in early 2011.
“It’s designed to establish the best scientific foundation to make future management decisions about wolves. That’s about all I can say about it at this point,” Tollefson said.
Matthew Daly contributed to this story from Washington, D.C.
Copyright 2010 helenair.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
Yesterday the DOI came out with a determination that the polar bear is threatened rather than endangered. Unregulated and largely unmonitored hunting is still to be allowed. Populations are still healthy so far as anyone knows. The status of threatened is entirely based upon computer models that predict global warming or climate change.
There clearly is a political faction in the United States that sees wildlife in a way that is very different from the way most people who live in rural America or have roots there see wildlife. This faction sees American agriculture, harvesting of wild plants and animals when done by Caucasians, and private land as obstacles to what they believe the world needs to become. Listen to National Public Radio for a while and you may be surprised at how mainstream this particular political faction apparently believes its ideas to be.
-
Just shoot em. SSS!
Jim, maybe we should reintroduce the free roaming bison also.
-
Let the buffalo roam. Sounds good to me. I got nothing against an affordable free range buffalo hunt. Of course, ranchers who graze on BLM land would be probably be against it.
-
Let the buffalo roam. Sounds good to me. I got nothing against an affordable free range buffalo hunt. Of course, ranchers who graze on BLM land would be probably be against it.
I hope your family isn't with you when you hit one with your car. I'd call it a Darwin award.
-
This post has a lot in common with our states wolf problem. You have someone a couple thousand miles away who is not effected by the issue telling those of us who are effected by it that its not a problem. ;)
-
This post has a lot in common with our states wolf problem. You have someone a couple thousand miles away who is not effected by the issue telling those of us who are effected by it that its not a problem. ;)
Nobody said you did not have a potential problem. They said you should stop stomping your feet like children to try and get your way because it isn't working. Its never going to work. As soon as you realize this and move on to the next step which is coming up with an acceptable management plan (no, total erradication outside of yellowstone is not an acceptable management plan), you will be aloud to deal with it.
-
Let the buffalo roam. Sounds good to me. I got nothing against an affordable free range buffalo hunt. Of course, ranchers who graze on BLM land would be probably be against it.
I hope your family isn't with you when you hit one with your car. I'd call it a Darwin award.
I guess we should wipe out all of the moose also, so we don't have to worry about hitting them with our cars as well. Might as well wipe out all big game species while we are at it so we don't have to worry about hitting them with our cars either.
-
They said you should stop stomping your feet like children to try and get your way because it isn't working. Its never going to work. As soon as you realize this and move on to the next step which is coming up with an acceptable management plan (no, total erradication outside of yellowstone is not an acceptable management plan), you will be aloud to deal with it.
What was wrong with a controlled hunt with quotas? That was yanked before it was given a chance. It appears the antis are the ones "stomping their feet like children" when they don't get their way. We don't like tree huggers and judges distorting and ignoring facts so a controlled hunt is not allowed (or for that matter people a couple thousand miles away in DC or any other state ::) telling us what we will be "aloud" to do). It has been noted here several times that this is not the same wolf that existed here to begin with, so why is it acceptable to let them decimate our other game species? The lack of care the antis show toward elk, moose sheep, etc. populations expose that they are only using the wolf as a tool in their fight. We are talking from first hand experience, not from biased opinions we have read online.
-
Let the buffalo roam. Sounds good to me. I got nothing against an affordable free range buffalo hunt. Of course, ranchers who graze on BLM land would be probably be against it.
I hope your family isn't with you when you hit one with your car. I'd call it a Darwin award.
I guess we should wipe out all of the moose also, so we don't have to worry about hitting them with our cars as well. Might as well wipe out all big game species while we are at it so we don't have to worry about hitting them with our cars either.
How many wolves and moose doyou havein TN? Howabout you mind what goes on in TN?
-
For one thing, you live in a state that is part of a nation so those officials which reside 2000 miles away do have a right to tell you what you are aloud to do as they do with all states. I can't dump nuclear waste on my property and you can't kill all the wolves on yours. What can we do other than play by the rules?
The problem is that Wyoming won't come up with a valid management plan. Rather than defending them by joining along and stomping your feet with them, you ought to tell them they are on their own and put whatever pressure you can on them. The judge is more than willing to open it up again if Wyoming plays along. I guess if all of you are right about the wolves killing off everything, then I guess Wyoming will have taught us all a lesson if they never comply. Of course, is that a lesson you really want to learn? At least you all will be able to say "I told you so". Thats worth it, isn't it?
-
Let the buffalo roam. Sounds good to me. I got nothing against an affordable free range buffalo hunt. Of course, ranchers who graze on BLM land would be probably be against it.
I hope your family isn't with you when you hit one with your car. I'd call it a Darwin award.
I guess we should wipe out all of the moose also, so we don't have to worry about hitting them with our cars as well. Might as well wipe out all big game species while we are at it so we don't have to worry about hitting them with our cars either.
How many wolves and moose doyou havein TN? Howabout you mind what goes on in TN?
Maybe you should try succession from the nation
-
and you can't kill all the wolves on yours.
I would bet it can be done. The locals in Northen MN tell me they gut shoot them and leave them run off. I live in southern MN and feel it's thier buisiness how they deal with the problem.
-
Maybe you should try succession from the nation
Just remember something JimFromTN you don't have a dog in the wolf wars here in Montana... We Do!
-
Well, you all just keep doing what you are doing with absolutely no success and when the elk populations are so low they have to close the season indefinately, you all can say "I told you so" and the rest of the nation will have learned its lesson.
By the way, when you vote for a federal official, you are voting for someone to have the authority to pass legislation on the rest of the nation. I am a citizen of the United States and Montana is a state in the Union so yes I do have a dog in the wolf wars because Montana is just as much mine is it is yours just like TN is just as much yours as it is mine. If you don't like it, succession is always an option.
-
So it would be alright to come dump a bunch of Rattlesnakes in yer back yard, or maybe a nice mess of Mountain lions to help thin down your pet population and keep ya on red alert while while doin yer jog. No need to ask you about it, cause I got as much say so as you do about it. Don't know about your state, but in Montana, the animals belong to Montana, ya poach one ya gotta pay for it, and not to the people in Washington. You want to see them nice big "doggies", bring the Canadian wolf on down to TN so you have em start takin over. DP
-
Well, you all just keep doing what you are doing with absolutely no success and when the elk populations are so low they have to close the season indefinately, you all can say "I told you so" and the rest of the nation will have learned its lesson.
JimFromTN, you failed to address my previous post about the controlled hunt held last year. It was never given a chance to work. The antis don't care about game animals. They are only using wolves to control hunters.
Wolf population estimates have always been far below actual wolf populations. Antis have no problem misrepresenting facts in front of biased judges to get their agendas rammed down our throats. I know you tried to get me to understand that I live in a state whos officials live 2000 miles away, but when they ignore facts to push through personal agends, they are not representing the people. I don't know how people feel about that in TN, but that does not sit well with the majority of the people here.
I am a citizen of the United States and Montana is a state in the Union so yes I do have a dog in the wolf wars because Montana is just as much mine is it is yours just like TN is just as much yours as it is mine. If you don't like it, succession is always an option.
This seems to be a growing mindset in this country. When it comes right down to it we are all just citizens of the world really. I guess we really have no more right to our land, homes, income and personal property here than someone living in China, Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. I guess we are just so backward out here in MT that enlightenment is still a ways off. Sometimes I wonder if there is any hope for us at all. It really does ""take a village" ...doesn't it? ::) ;) ;D
-
What is going on here?! ??? TN and 48 other states won't allow me to register to vote simply because I'm not a resident of their state! Isn't it my right to have my voice heard on their issues that don't effect me and I never have to live with the consequences of? I guess when the citizens vote there and get it wrong I can always say "I told you so!". Oh well, this should change soon. There are some in DC who feel that citizens of other countries should have the right to vote in our national elections since our leaders effect them to one extent or another. Thats good...isn't it? :-\
-
JimFromTN ~ You are very incorrect with your thinking, Justice Scalia ruled that the Federal Government does not have the right to tell states what to do back when the Brady Law was passed. He not only stated once but three times. In 1997, in Printz vs. the United States, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the sheriffs in a landmark state rights ruling that affirmed states are “not subject to federal direction” and “Congress cannot compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the ruling, clarifying how both the state governments and the federal government are independent sovereign spheres, each “protected from incursion by the other.”
“The federal government,” Scalia proclaimed, “may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
Prince Vs United States (http://www.answers.com/topic/printz-v-united-states)
You as a citizen of Tenn do not have a vested interest in what happens in Montana, you can not vote here on any matters for the FACT of it. The do gooders think that they have a vested interest in Montana as a park to come to and see critters.
NOW I suggest you lower your tone in my room.
-
Hey Tenn.. You keep saying Wyo does not have a valid plan, why don't you try to learn a few facts rather than spouting liberal propeganda. Wyo did have a plan that was agreed to by all the professionals. But the tree huggers were the ones acting like babies. They just couldn't understand that wild animal populations grow and in a man altered world we live in today there have to be controls. And so they found themselves a good tree hugger judge who has no idea about how the real world works who screwed up all the work that had been done in getting the plans in place to delist the wolves and place some control on populations.
I live in Wyo and am proud of the fact that our professional biologists stood up to the Feds and convinced our Democrat Govenor that they were right. The people who reintroduced the wolves made promises about how big the population was going to be. They let the wolves get way beyond the promised limits before they made any effort to develop plans to control the numbers.
-
JimFromTN, you mentioned that the Red Wolf was reintroduced into Tennessee not too long ago. What if the feds had 'reintroduced' the Canada Gray Wolf or Timber Wolf into Tennessee instead of the Red Wolf? Then you would have an idea of what we are facing in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and even Washington and Oregon. You can't 'reintroduce' a species of animal into an area where that species never existed in the first place.
The governor of Idaho recently instructed all Fish and Game Officers not to pursue any reports of wolf poaching in the state. An Idaho game warden told a friend of mine to always gut shoot them so they would run several miles before they died. That way they would be out of the area where the shooter was and the recovery of the bullet would be almost impossible.
I have lived and hunted here for 27 years and have seen a dramatic decrease in the elk, deer, and black bear populations since the wolf was 'reintroduced'.
You stated that someday you would like to hunt in Montana. Under the current situation, there won't be enough game animals left for you to come and hunt.
-
NOW I suggest you lower your tone in my room.
My only tone is pointing out that you all are failing because you have to hold your ground regardless of the cost to yourselves and everyone else.
I'm sorry but National Forest, National Parks, and BLM land is as much mine as it is yours regardless of what state it is in. Anything that is federally owned belongs to everyone. My taxes go to subsidize the ranchers who graze it, the mineral companies that mine it, the loggers who log it, as well as everyone else who uses it. Don't tell me I have to subsidize hunting and industry in these states and then tell me its not my business. The only difference between the people saying I have no right in any of this and the liberals, is who gets a free ride off of my tax dollars.
-
Pab1, I said I was all for the managed wolf hunts. I think its great. I hated to see it closed. That was my point of this thread. Everyone just assumes because I don't automatically take Wyoming's side, I must be an animal rights activist. I love hunting and I dream of hunting out west some day. I think you all are very fortunate. I think wolf hunting should be open in all of the states. The problem is that total erradication of the species outside the national park is not a valid management program and will not be accepted by anyone. The judge has made it perfectly clear that if Wyoming would adopt the same program as Montana, they would open it back up again but rather than asking Wyoming why they don't just do it, you take their side and blame the animal rights people. By doing so, you have shot yourself in the foot and we are all going to lose as a result of it. Thanks guys. I probably never could have afforded to hunt elk out west anyhow. I guess in the future if any of us want to elk hunt, we will have to hunt a high fence somewhere.
-
http://gf.state.wy.us/services/education/wolves/index.asp (http://gf.state.wy.us/services/education/wolves/index.asp)
Jim,
Please, for the sake of everyone here, follow the link above to the Wyoming Game and Fish web site so you can educate yourself on the Wyoming's wolf management plan and proposed hunting seasons before you post any more inaccurate information. The draft regulation says absolutely nothing about "total eradication of the species outside of the national park". If you look at the map Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park are in the area bounded in red, but make up only a portion of that area, which is the area where wolves would be protected. To further educate yourself about Wyoming it would be a good idea to look at a physical map of the state. It will show that the area in red also coincides with a continuous mountain chain known as the Rocky Mountains. The majority of the state, outside of that area, is made up of high plains where a large portion of this nation's beef and sheep are raised. The area where the cattle and sheep are raised is in the portion of Wyoming where wolves would be considered predators, like coyotes. If you read the regulation the wolves killed as predators in this portion of the state also have to be reported with information including the animal's sex and the lat./long. of the kill site. Even if the regulation was intended to allow for total eradication it likely would never be achieved. We've been shooting coyotes as predators for generations and can't seem to get rid of them either.
-
You are right. They can only kill everything outside of the National Parks and the trophy management wolf zones. That makes all the difference in the world. You can't compare the coyote population to the wolf population. Treating the wolf as a preditor in non-trophy wolf areas can have a negative affect on the wolf populations which is the intent. If I were a Montana or Idaho resident, I would have major issues with this. Wyoming could easily kill enough wolves to relist the wolf and close the season for all the other states before they can deal wih their own wolf numbers leaving them with a wolf problem. Great for Wyoming, sucks for everyone else. I don't understand how anyone outside of Wyoming would want anything to do with this particular plan. Why doesn't everyone do this and then there can be a race to see who can kill the most wolves before the season gets closed. Those who didn't kill enough wolves to manage their own populations are just plain out of luck.
What should happen is that each state is given a certain number of tags based on the wolf population in that state. As for livestock issues, ranchers can let permit holders hunt their land. Of course, you know they will want a trespass fee even though the hunter is doing them a great favor.
-
I guess I need to go back and expand on my geography lesson, since you obviously didn't pay attention last time. Wolves live where there are elk. Elk live in mountainous areas. For the wolves to get from the mountains in the management area to mountains in other parts of the state they have to cross large expanses of desert and plains, where there are no elk. As a result of this the vast majority of the wolves in Wyoming live inside of the red boundary. To my knowledge there are no established packs of wolves east of Cody. The point I'm trying to make here is that there is no way Wyoming hunters could kill a large enough number of wolves as predators to have a huge impact on the population. The only time there are wolves in parts of the state other than the management area is when the population grows to a point that they begin to look for places to expand. Every year there are a few scattered sightings of "wolf-like creatures" in the mountains around the state, but most of those sightings are never confirmed. The whole point of the predatory status is to keep the wolves inside of the management area and not create a situation where they become a problem for ranchers.
-
I think Tenn just doesn't want to understand. And to think he is a hunter, what chance do we have convincing the tree huggers from liberalville. But if he wants to hunt in the rocky mountains he'd better get it done fast and hunt in ranges far away from the Yellowstone ecosystem. It is gone, and our other ranges soon will be.
Every hunter I know that used to hunt in the mountains connected to Yellowstone has either quit hunting or has started hunting other ranges. When I lived at Pinedale there were mooses everywhere. Last year I had a COW permit and when I went over to hunt I couldn't even find sign. I talked to several landowners and they said there hadn't been any mooses since the wolves came.
This whole wolf business has been just a whole string of lies and broken promises made by the Feds and their tree hugger masters.
-
Addressing the comment; "My taxes go to subsidize the ranchers who graze it, the mineral companies that mine it, the loggers who log it, as well as everyone else who uses it."
There is no subsidy that would stand up to financial accounting principles (FASB instead of GSAB, I suppose). The timber and the grazing were there before the federal government declared it owns the land, and if the bureaucrats that consume the "subsidy" were gainfully employed producing something then taxpayers would not have to pay for them.
State residents who are surrounded by federal land have a superior right to use that land, and 99 times out of 100 they know much more about how to manage that land than do the federal bureaucrats who cycle in and out of the posh federal offices on their way to a superior retirement package.
-
So in other words, Wyoming is holding up the other states from having a wolf management program and keeping the wolf listed over a non-issue and fantom sightings of possible wolves because someday they may be an issue for ranchers? I got an idea, why don't you wait until its an actual issue? That way, the wolf would have been delisted for a while and their numbers will be established and you won't be getting them relisted and causing issues for all the other states involved. In the mean time, perhaps Wyoming could hold back some of their wolf tags for the ranchers they are so worried about. Of course, it could be a waste of wolf tags because the wolves don't exist in these areas which Wyoming is holding up the delisting over.
As for federal lands, lets see how much the ranchers, miners, and loggers would like it if it were managed like private land by the private sector. I don't know what the land owner cut is out west for logging but here in TN, the land owner gets half. Lets see how the loggers like that. If land owners get a tresspass fee from hunters then the federal government should get the same. Lets run it like a real business in the private sector and see how everyone likes it. Newt Gingrich was for the outright sale of all public lands and he still is. Lets see what happens to hunting out west if that were to happen. It would be just like TX where there is no public land to hunt and you either pay some exorbitant amount to hunt deer for a weekend to get your one deer a year or you have to pay to get on a lease with whole bunch of other people where its hard to see any wildlife at all because its so over hunted. Sounds like great fun.
-
If you read more carefully I said most sightings of wolves outside of the management area are unconfirmed. Those that are substantiated are because the wolves stayed in a location until they caused problems and/or were killed. There was an incident two summers ago on the southern end of the Bighorn Mountains, which are located approximately 80 miles east of Yellowstone across the Bighorn Basin, where a breeding pair of wolves made a den and had about four pups. The two wolves managed to kill over 60 head of sheep on summer range in a two month span. All of this was documented and confirmed by game biologists and wolf experts. The rancher was issued a shoot on sight permit by the government and the problem was quickly sorted out, but we as taxpayers reimbursed him for those lost sheep. The moral of this story is that there is absolute proof that wolves cause problems with livestock. We don't need to sit back and see if it becomes a problem, common sense and facts say it will. Why allow it to happen at all?
-
JimFromTN your uneducation about wolves is sure showing, your taunts are not welcome. Be nice Last Warning
-
I appologize for taunting anyone. I am uneducated in wolf matters but it seems like nothing is getting accomplished as a result of stubborness. It seems that the people who want to manage the wolf population have hit a wall and rather than taking the path around the wall, they have decided to keep ramming the wall hoping it might fall down. From an outsider's perspective, the wall has not even started to crack and the anti's are adding more bricks to it every chance they get. I hate to say it but it looks like you all are doomed because that wall isn't coming down and you all don't like the path that goes around it.
-
I appologize for taunting anyone. I am uneducated in wolf matters but it seems like nothing is getting accomplished as a result of stubborness. It seems that the people who want to manage the wolf population have hit a wall and rather than taking the path around the wall, they have decided to keep ramming the wall hoping it might fall down. From an outsider's perspective, the wall has not even started to crack and the anti's are adding more bricks to it every chance they get. I hate to say it but it looks like you all are doomed because that wall isn't coming down and you all don't like the path that goes around it.
Jim,
Let me ask you this. If the animal that was introduced into Yellowstone was the African lion and they spread outside the park, would you still have the same opinion?
-
If the lion was introduced and you were told to come up with a valid management plan and you refused, yes, I think you would still be doomed.
The issue is no longer whether or not the wolf should have been re-introduced and opinions on that issue mean nothing at this point. You might have a chance if people are willing to accept this fact and move on to the real issue, otherwise, you're doomed.
-
Sorry, but the logic is faulty. If we took this attitude in relation to guns we would have lost them years ago.
Each and every time we compromise on this issue we lose. Some where sooner or later we have to stand our ground.
-
Here's a link to a new 2-page publication from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on how to live and camp around wolves: https://secure.wildlife.alaska.gov/management/wolves/wolf_safety_brochure.pdf
This talks about not leaving children unattended, wolves eating dogs that are hitched outside your house, keeping livestock in well lighted areas, etc. Last year a school teacher who was jogging near the town airport was killed and eaten by wolves. Later in the year another town was harassed by wolves, and residents and the state killed a large number of wolves in and near that town. Alaska likely has less agriculture by any measure than does any other state so those types of conflicts are more limited than would be the case in another state. However, any state where wolves are being introduced might look at including responses to human-wolf interaction in any management plan.
-
In Biblical end times prophecy it talks about wild beasts roaming around killing people. I used to think that this was just symbolism for something similar. Now once again I discover that you should always take the Bible as literally as possible. Reduce the human population dramatically by a few of the other plagues predicted, and the wolves in the US could indeed be wandering around hunting mankind not to mention the grizzlies.
-
Yep, there are people down here in the south that still complain about losing the civil war. If they keep holding their ground, maybe they will be aloud to break off from the nation some day.
In the mean time, I guess I'll start looking into high fenced elk hunts.
-
In the mean time, I guess I'll start looking into high fenced elk hunts.
If you can call that a "hunt". Elk are not meant to be fenced. One of the best things you can do for elk (IMO) is to join and support the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
-
Pab, Do you know if the Elk Foundation has taken a position on the wolf business. It would sure be helpful if some sane organizations started making waves too instead of just the freaks.
-
Bilmac, here is a letter printed in the Missoulian signed by the President of the RMEF and members of five other organizations calling for delisting and state management. Everything I have seen from them calls for state management.
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_dd18d5d8-e38c-11df-a7da-001cc4c002e0.html
-
Every outdoorsman I know is not the type to be interested a lot in politics and petitions and rallies and that Kind of crap, but the folks on the other side don't seem to have anything better to do with their time. They love to throw their weight around in issues that they completely ignorant about. I hope that some of the good guys will get involved, but we just aren't naturally inclined to do stuff like this.
-
Bilmac, here is a letter printed in the Missoulian signed by the President of the RMEF and members of five other organizations calling for delisting and state management. Everything I have seen from them calls for state management.
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_dd18d5d8-e38c-11df-a7da-001cc4c002e0.html
The 2nd to last paragraph says it all.
-
The Topic is wolf management in Montana. The topic is not Wildlife management politics in Alaska.
Discussion on Alaska wolf problems moved to the Alaska forum.
-
No worries. I will never again write anything in Graybeard Outdoors. I hope the remainder of your life goes well.
-
No worries. I will never again write anything in Graybeard Outdoors. I hope the remainder of your life goes well.
So sorry you feel that way. You were asked to stay on topic and you didn't. You choose to ignore the Moderators requests. I really should have just deleted your comments, but instead as a courtesy to you I moved them to the Alaska forum where they are relevant.
-
Double D, Perhaps this entire topic should be moved to Western Big Game Hunting since those states with wolf problems are throughout the west, not just confined to Montana. Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, and Oregon have been mentioned as well as Alaska. I think thxmrgarand's comments were entirely relevant to the subject at hand. Any experience that anyone has had with the wolf overpopulation or the threat of wolf packs should be aired in this topic. I know there have been plenty of wolf horror stories in Idaho.
-
PBS,
I think you are partially correct as far as the topic being relevant for the the Western Big Forum. The topic is not related to the Alaska issue at all.
The topic is wolf management in Montana and Montana's efforts to comply with the Federal Governments introduction of an exotics species of wolves in Montana.
Montana's attempts to comply with the standard have been stymied by the Federal court because another state does not wish to comply. Montana has no control over Wyoming and how they choose to comply.
Alaska is not part of this debate. Alaska is not part of this ongoing lawsuit and Montana's management program is not on hold because of Alaska's wolf program. Alaska is not part of this topic
What is going on in Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Washing and probably soon Utah and Colorado has a bearing on Montana being allowed to institute a wolf management program. What is going on in Alaska has no bearing.
The problems with wolves is an entire different discussion all together and just as contentious as this one.
Thxmrgarand disscussion points did not have anything to do with Montana wolf management program. He was asked by the Moderator politely and tactfully to bring it back to Montana, to connect to Montana. Thxmrgarand choose to refuse to do that.
Because thxmrgarand points were good and valid, and important but not relevant to Montana discussion, instead of being deleted they were moved to the Alaska board where they were relevant.
Thxmrgarands response to my actions certainly doesn't compel me to reconsider his position.
-
Thanks for the explanation, Double D. Since I'm in Idaho, I'll hold my comments until such time when/if the topic is moved to Western Big game.
-
PBS it would be a good discussion for the Western big game forum, open up a new topic.
Because the court has decided that Montana's management program can not be instituted until all the involved states are in compliance, then problems with Idaho's program do indeed affect Montana. The issues in Alaska don't--right now.
Wyoming intransigence on the issue right now is problem. JiminTN wants Wyoming to just give in. He seems to think we will get our program approved, if Wyoming does give in.. We might, he could be right, but experience is when we meet each criteria a new one is put place. What happens if Wyoming gets in line and complies with the the Judges wishes?
What happens if wolves suddenly show up in Colorado or Utah? Does Montana have to wait for those states to put there program together?
I can kind of see where the court is coming from in dealing with Wyoming attitude about shoot on sight. The wolf is a protected species and shoot on site does nothing to protect it. But what does that have to do with the states who are compliant.
-
The best thing to come down from Helena in a long time:
Schweitzer says Montana will defy feds, kill wolves that prey on elk, livestock
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_7d25caf6-3a20-11e0-a8ef-001cc4c002e0.html