Author Topic: Wolf wars  (Read 6007 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Wolf wars
« 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.  

Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12609
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2010, 09:26:04 AM »
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.

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2010, 11:20:27 AM »
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.

Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12609
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2010, 06:41:27 PM »
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.


Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2010, 03:38:33 AM »
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.

Offline curteric

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Avid Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 239
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2010, 06:07:45 AM »
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.

Offline pab1

  • Trade Count: (54)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2010, 09:44:28 AM »
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
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. "
Thomas Paine

Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12609
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2010, 09:46:09 AM »
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.

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2010, 12:21:11 PM »
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.

Offline Cottonwood

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Gender: Male
  • "Capturing the moment, to last a lifetime"
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2010, 02:34:15 AM »
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.

Quote
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?

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2010, 04:26:48 AM »
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.

Offline pab1

  • Trade Count: (54)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2010, 07:04:23 PM »
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.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. "
Thomas Paine

Offline curteric

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Avid Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 239
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2010, 12:35:00 AM »
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.

Offline JW307

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2010, 06:18:11 AM »
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.

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2010, 09:49:03 AM »
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.

Offline thxmrgarand

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2010, 10:12:34 AM »
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.

 

Offline Cottonwood

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Gender: Male
  • "Capturing the moment, to last a lifetime"
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2010, 07:13:23 AM »
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.


Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12609
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2010, 07:04:24 PM »
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.

Offline thxmrgarand

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #18 on: December 24, 2010, 11:08:44 AM »
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.

Offline billy_56081

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2010, 11:38:04 AM »
Just shoot em. SSS!

Jim, maybe we should reintroduce the free roaming bison also.
99% of all Lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. What I find hilarious about this is they are such an arrogant bunch, that they all think they are in the 1%.

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2010, 04:06:38 AM »
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. 

Offline billy_56081

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2010, 04:35:44 PM »
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.
99% of all Lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. What I find hilarious about this is they are such an arrogant bunch, that they all think they are in the 1%.

Offline pab1

  • Trade Count: (54)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2010, 07:29:43 PM »
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.  ;)
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. "
Thomas Paine

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2010, 04:19:29 AM »
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.

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #24 on: December 30, 2010, 04:22:16 AM »
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.

Offline pab1

  • Trade Count: (54)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2010, 06:43:34 AM »
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.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. "
Thomas Paine

Offline billy_56081

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2010, 07:58:40 AM »
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?
99% of all Lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. What I find hilarious about this is they are such an arrogant bunch, that they all think they are in the 1%.

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2010, 08:02:25 AM »
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?

Offline JimFromTN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2010, 08:06:53 AM »
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

Offline billy_56081

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wolf wars
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2010, 08:13:55 AM »
   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.
99% of all Lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. What I find hilarious about this is they are such an arrogant bunch, that they all think they are in the 1%.