The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: 1Buckshot on August 06, 2010, 08:49:53 AM
-
Our local Federal judge Molley just put the wolves in Montana and Idaho back on the endangered species list. No wolf hunting this year for us, at least not legally. Sportsman are mad and they will be taking the matters into there own hands.
-
Our local Federal judge Molley just put the wolves in Montana and Idaho back on the endangered species list. No wolf hunting this year for us, at least not legally. Sportsman are mad and they will be taking the matters into there own hands.
Wasnt they reintroduced in to montana wit much protest from ranchers?
Seems like a few may have taken matters into their own hands. Whooops never saw that coming
-
Wildlife advocates hail Rocky Mountain wolf ruling
By MATT VOLZ (AP) – 19 minutes ago
HELENA, Mont. — Wildlife advocates say a ruling to restore Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains buys time to create a better plan than the one the judge rejected, one that ensures their numbers don't dwindle again.
Meanwhile, state wildlife officials in Montana and Idaho were reviewing Thursday's ruling that blocked them from carrying out their wolf management plans and their preparations for wolf hunts this fall. State officials said they were considering their options, including an appeal.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's ruling knocked down a U.S. Fish and Wildlife decision last year that kept federal protections in place in Wyoming, where state law is considered hostile to the animals' survival, but turned over to Montana and Idaho wolf management responsibilities within their borders.
Molloy said in his ruling that the entire Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population either must be listed as an endangered species or removed from the list, but the protections for the same population can't be different for each state.
Separating the protections may solve a tricky political issue, but it does not comply with the Endangered Species Act, Molloy ruled.
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland said the ruling means that the federal protections will be in place for all three states until Wyoming brings its wolf management program into alignment with Idaho's and Montana's
"Since wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains are now again subject to ESA protection, in the days ahead we will work closely with Idaho and Montana to explore all appropriate options for managing wolves in those states," Strickland said in a statement.
Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, but following a reintroduction program in the mid-1990s, there are now more than 1,700 in the Northern Rockies, which includes all of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, along with portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.
Matt Skoglund of the National Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said a true recovery number would be at least 2,000 wolves in the region.
"We're real close to recovery. We've got 1,700 wolves in the Rockies. But we're not there," Skoglund said. "We want to see a plan in place that ensures genetic connectivity among the subpopulations and ultimately guarantees a sustainable wolf population."
State wildlife officials in Montana and Idaho say they are capable of managing the wolves within their borders, and that the population has rebounded to the point where there are now too many of the animals. The increase in the wolf population has brought livestock losses for ranchers and competition for hunters for big game, such as elk.
Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Montana has done everything it's been asked to do in developing its state management program but now will have to apply federal law and regulations once more.
Both states' management plans include wolf hunts that now must be scrapped. Montana wildlife regulators just last month set the wolf-hunt quota this year at 186 with the aim of reducing the state's wolf population for the first time since they were reintroduced.
"That's clearly a management tool that we want to have in the toolbox. We think it's legitimate and appropriate," Sime said.
At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.
Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the NRDC and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the Fish and Wildlife Service decision in April 2009. They argued that the government's decision would have set a precedent allowing the government to arbitrarily choose which animals should be protected and where.
Idaho's congressional delegation released a statement that said Molloy's ruling ignored the exploding population of wolves and that the state can manage wolves in a sustainable and responsible way.
"We look for a more reasonable decision from a higher court," the statement from Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Reps. Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick said.
Molloy's ruling could affect a lawsuit in which Wyoming charges the Fish and Wildlife Service had no reason to refuse to turn over management of gray wolves to Wyoming as it did to the other states. The case is before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson of Cheyenne.
-
Wildlife advocates hail Rocky Mountain wolf ruling
By MATT VOLZ (AP) – 19 minutes ago
HELENA, Mont. — Wildlife advocates say a ruling to restore Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains buys time to create a better plan than the one the judge rejected, one that ensures their numbers don't dwindle again.
Meanwhile, state wildlife officials in Montana and Idaho were reviewing Thursday's ruling that blocked them from carrying out their wolf management plans and their preparations for wolf hunts this fall. State officials said they were considering their options, including an appeal.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's ruling knocked down a U.S. Fish and Wildlife decision last year that kept federal protections in place in Wyoming, where state law is considered hostile to the animals' survival, but turned over to Montana and Idaho wolf management responsibilities within their borders.
Molloy said in his ruling that the entire Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population either must be listed as an endangered species or removed from the list, but the protections for the same population can't be different for each state.
Separating the protections may solve a tricky political issue, but it does not comply with the Endangered Species Act, Molloy ruled.
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland said the ruling means that the federal protections will be in place for all three states until Wyoming brings its wolf management program into alignment with Idaho's and Montana's
"Since wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains are now again subject to ESA protection, in the days ahead we will work closely with Idaho and Montana to explore all appropriate options for managing wolves in those states," Strickland said in a statement.
Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, but following a reintroduction program in the mid-1990s, there are now more than 1,700 in the Northern Rockies, which includes all of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, along with portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.
Matt Skoglund of the National Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said a true recovery number would be at least 2,000 wolves in the region.
"We're real close to recovery. We've got 1,700 wolves in the Rockies. But we're not there," Skoglund said. "We want to see a plan in place that ensures genetic connectivity among the subpopulations and ultimately guarantees a sustainable wolf population."
State wildlife officials in Montana and Idaho say they are capable of managing the wolves within their borders, and that the population has rebounded to the point where there are now too many of the animals. The increase in the wolf population has brought livestock losses for ranchers and competition for hunters for big game, such as elk.
Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Montana has done everything it's been asked to do in developing its state management program but now will have to apply federal law and regulations once more.
Both states' management plans include wolf hunts that now must be scrapped. Montana wildlife regulators just last month set the wolf-hunt quota this year at 186 with the aim of reducing the state's wolf population for the first time since they were reintroduced.
"That's clearly a management tool that we want to have in the toolbox. We think it's legitimate and appropriate," Sime said.
At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.
Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the NRDC and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the Fish and Wildlife Service decision in April 2009. They argued that the government's decision would have set a precedent allowing the government to arbitrarily choose which animals should be protected and where.
Idaho's congressional delegation released a statement that said Molloy's ruling ignored the exploding population of wolves and that the state can manage wolves in a sustainable and responsible way.
"We look for a more reasonable decision from a higher court," the statement from Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Reps. Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick said.
Molloy's ruling could affect a lawsuit in which Wyoming charges the Fish and Wildlife Service had no reason to refuse to turn over management of gray wolves to Wyoming as it did to the other states. The case is before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson of Cheyenne.
You damn right our state law is hostile to their survival!!!!!! I have gone on this rant before, but I think it bears repeating. The biggest opposition to the whole reintroduction in the first place was this:
The feds decided to relocate a non-native species to our state(s). Ok fine. BUT, they tell the state game and fish that they are to manage them using their own budgets. The states however, are not allowed to manage them the way they see fit. And with the increased livestock losses due to wolf kills, we are now seeing all of our fees go way up.
In Wyoming there is a don't ask don't tell policy on killing wolves. Most of the game wardens tell us to plug away, then just keep your mouth shut. One neat trick is, if you wax one with a radio collar: Pop the collar off and go snap it on the back of a semi. ;D
It boils down to some enviro-tard in Oregon telling us how we have to live because they think they know better.
I'm going off to the corner until I quit steaming. >:(
-
Personally, I would prefer the Wolves to many of the people I have met. I feel the same way about Prairie dogs.
How ever, I do not have livestock being munched or crippled, would most likely reverse my opinion.
So I do not shoot varmints myself, but do not condemn those who do.
-
Though I understand the plight of ranchers and farmers and sympathize with them, they are in fact a native species throughout North America. Their range is quite extensive.
-
Though I understand the plight of ranchers and farmers and sympathize with them, they are in fact a native species throughout North America. Their range is quite extensive.
Ok, I should clarify. When I say non-native this is what I mean. We HAD wolves in Yellowstone before the "reintroduction". Their numbers were kept in check because it was only the alpha male and female that were reproducing. The transplants are ALL breading and their numbers are exploding. The fact that WE as a state weren't given a say in the matter, and then told we had to pay for the management, (out of our own pockets) is what get people here upity. Especially when we aren't allowed to manage things the way we thing it should be done.
-
Ok, I should clarify. When I say non-native this is what I mean. We HAD wolves in Yellowstone before the "reintroduction". Their numbers were kept in check because it was only the alpha male and female that were reproducing. The transplants are ALL breading and their numbers are exploding. The fact that WE as a state weren't given a say in the matter, and then told we had to pay for the management, (out of our own pockets) is what get people here upity. Especially when we aren't allowed to manage things the way we thing it should be done.
Silly, small mined person! Your betters will tell you how to do it! ::)
-
Ok, I should clarify. When I say non-native this is what I mean. We HAD wolves in Yellowstone before the "reintroduction". Their numbers were kept in check because it was only the alpha male and female that were reproducing. The transplants are ALL breading and their numbers are exploding. The fact that WE as a state weren't given a say in the matter, and then told we had to pay for the management, (out of our own pockets) is what get people here uppity. Especially when we aren't allowed to manage things the way we thing it should be done.
Thanks....and we are in 100% complete agreement.
-
Silly, small mined person! Your betters will tell you how to do it! ::)
What was I thinking!!!! I better fire up my hazarita bullet and go sit down and shut up before I say something controversial. ;D
-
What was I thinking!!!! I better fire up my hazarita bullet and go sit down and shut up before I say something controversial. ;D
I'll do it for you. ;D We had the same deal in Fl. with bringing in cougars to boost our panther population. Good! We need a predator in the eco system (preferably one that eats developers and yankees) ;D. Out west with the wolves? The way I see it is this. If you rent grazing rights on public land (at subsidized prices), you rent the wolves too. If the wolves eat a few cows, don't come crying to me. Don't like it? Rent on a private ranch. If however, there are wolf kills on private land, the feds should get the bill for the livestock and the rancher should get to hang as many pelts in his living room as he wants.
Lets see....
Pissed off the farm bureau? check.
Pissed off wolf lovers? Check.
Pissed off those who resent the reintroduction? Check.
Pissed off PETA? check and check
Pissed off devolpers and yankees? Check.
That'll about do it. ;D
FQ13
-
Personally, I would prefer the Wolves to many of the people I have met. I feel the same way about Prairie dogs.
How ever, I do not have livestock being munched or crippled, would most likely reverse my opinion.
So I do not shoot varmints myself, but do not condemn those who do.
I'm kinda with Tom on this, but again I don't have livestock.
I like wolves. I kinda look like one.
-
I'll do it for you. ;D We had the same deal in Fl. with bringing in cougars to boost our panther population. Good! We need a predator in the eco system (preferably one that eats developers and yankees) ;D. Out west with the wolves? The way I see it is this. If you rent grazing rights on public land (at subsidized prices), you rent the wolves too. If the wolves eat a few cows, don't come crying to me. Don't like it? Rent on a private ranch. If however, there are wolf kills on private land, the feds should get the bill for the livestock and the rancher should get to hang as many pelts in his living room as he wants.
Lets see....
Pissed off the farm bureau? check.
Pissed off wolf lovers? Check.
Pissed off those who resent the reintroduction? Check.
Pissed off PETA? check and check
Pissed off devolpers and yankees? Check.
That'll about do it. ;D
FQ13
That's all well and good except it's the STATE that pays the bill. Not the feds. That's most of the gripe. Kinda like Obamacare. It's forcing the state to pay for something that the people never wanted in the first place. Even if you catch a wolf killing your livestock, you still aren't allowed to shoot them. On a side note, did you know that wolves kill for sport?
-
Just to drift some more. We are battling the enviro-tards over Prairie Dogs now. They want to list the damn things because it's the main diet of the Black-Footed Feret.
-
Just to drift some more. We are battling the enviro-tards over Prairie Dogs now. They want to list the damn things because it's the main diet of the Black-Footed Feret.
Those make great pets I hear. Maybe they should take some home to cuddle with the kids. ;D
FQ13
-
Those make great pets I hear. Maybe they should take some home to cuddle with the kids. ;D
FQ13
We call them prairie maggots, or speed bumps, depending on whether or not you are driving. ;)
-
Haz said:
Silly, small mined minded person! Your betters will tell you how to do it!
Fixed it for you. A small mined person would be some sort of troglodyte pulled from a hole. A small minded person is one of limited insight and/or knowledge.
And Haz, reflect on this truth: We ARE our betters. We are, unfortunately, being directed by our inferiors!
Offered by Crusader, as a constructive way to needle a best friend before I go over and drink large quantities of his beer. ;) ;D ;) ;D
-
Haz said:
Fixed it for you. A small mined person would be some sort of troglodyte pulled from a hole. A small minded person is one of limited insight and/or knowledge.
And Haz, reflect on this truth: We ARE our betters. We are, unfortunately, being directed by our inferiors!
Offered by Crusader, as a constructive way to needle a best friend before I go over and drink large quantities of his beer. ;) ;D ;) ;D
ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
I victim of spell check! (was that democratic enough for ya? ;) )
-
The darn spell check is great if you miss spell a word, but useless if you spell the wrong word correctly ;D
About JC's post, this goes back to a major grievance the States have against the Feds, the so called "unfunded Mandates", the cost of over seeing the Wolf program is minor compared to the ones involving welfare, highways and other Federal programs the States have been saddled with.
Should be like a restaurant, If you order it, you can darn well pay for it.
-
The darn spell check is great if you miss spell a word, but useless if you spell the wrong word correctly ;D
About JC's post, this goes back to a major grievance the States have against the Feds, the so called "unfunded Mandates", the cost of over seeing the Wolf program is minor compared to the ones involving welfare, highways and other Federal programs the States have been saddled with.
Should be like a restaurant, If you order it, you can darn well pay for it.
Problem with this one is that it's not distributed equally either. All of the money used to manage the wolves is born by sportsman. Through higher license, and access fees. Not mention higher taxes on equipment. i.e. Guns, and Ammo! It also takes away from other management efforts by taking away from funds that would normally go there.
Not to be intended as an argument, just clarification.
-
Problem with this one is that it's not distributed equally either. All of the money used to manage the wolves is born by sportsman. Through higher license, and access fees. Not mention higher taxes on equipment. i.e. Guns, and Ammo! It also takes away from other management efforts by taking away from funds that would normally go there.
Not to be intended as an argument, just clarification.
Understood and appreciated.