R
RUTTROE
Guest
Just out on the news, Montana Judge has ruled in favor to keep the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana.
R
RUTTROE
Guest
Im happy they kept the wolf hunts going. Montana starts Sept 15th, Idaho has been on its way. I feel the hunt quota's are to low, 75 Montana and 250 Idaho. Does anybody know how many have been taken in Idaho so far?
NVBighorn
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 9,458
I realize this articvle may be biased given where it was published but it sounds to me like there is a real need to control wolves. Sometimes an introduced, or in this case reintroduced, species gets out of control simply because it is better adapted than others.
http://www.westerncowman.com/september09/war_with_wolves.html
http://www.westerncowman.com/september09/war_with_wolves.html
OutdoorWriter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,276
Federal judge rules in favor of controversial wolf hunts in Montana, Idaho
By MATTHEW BROWN , Associated Press
September 9, 2009 - 10:35 AM
BILLINGS, Mont. - A federal judge said Wednesday that gray wolf hunts in the Northern Rockies can go on, denying a request by environmentalists and animal welfare groups to stop the first organized wolf hunts in decades in Idaho and Montana.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said plans to kill about 20 percent of the two states' estimated 1,350 wolves would not cause long-term harm to the population. He said federal biologists had shown the animal could sustain a 30 percent annual reduction without long-term harm.
But Molloy added that by carving Wyoming out of the recent decision to remove wolves from federal protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appeared to violate the Endangered Species Act by making its decision based on political boundaries.
Molloy said that means environmentalists could ultimately prevail in their bid to restore endangered species protection for the animals.
"The Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science," Molloy wrote in his 14-page opinion. "That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious."
Doug Honnold, the Earthjustice attorney who had argued the case on behalf of 14 groups opposed to the hunts, had a mixed reaction to the ruling.
"If they violated the endangered species act, then this population eventually is going have to go back on the (endangered) list," Honnold said. "Obviously we're disappointed he did not issue an injunction."
He added that he "took no comfort" in Molloy's statement that the population could withstand this year's hunt.
Representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service could not be reached immediately for comment.
Hunters in Idaho have so far taken three wolves since wolf season opened there Sept. 1. The state has a quota allowing as many as 220 wolves to be killed. Montana's season is set to begin Sept. 15, with a quota of 75 wolves.
Jim Unsworth with Idaho Fish and Game said his state's hunt so far has gone smoothly.
"Everything is working just like we planned, which shouldn't be a surprise since we've done this for years with other critters," Unsworth said.
Last year, Molloy sided with environmentalists in a similar case. As a result, the federal government kept about 300 wolves in Wyoming on the endangered list but in May took them off the list in Montana and Idaho.
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
M
MonteMontana
Guest
Great Post!! Thank you!!
F
Frontier
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-09 AT 11:32AM (MST)[p]>I realize this articvle may be
>biased given where it was
>published but it sounds to
>me like there is a
>real need to control wolves.
It's only bias if it's untrue. Here it is the 9th of September and only 4 wolves have been killed by sportsmen, I think it's starting to become obivious that hunters aren't going to control the population.
Before the settlers arrived there were thousands of wild animals available for one pack of wolves to eat from. They could kill 2 to 3 hundred animals a year and the population supported it. With only a few hundred elk available in a given unit a pack of wolves can wipe them out in one year, then they must move on to the next unit. When several packs wipe the majority of wild animals out there's only one place to go, the domestic livestock. As the cliche goes you ain't seen nothin yet applies here for depredation on domestic livestock. The wolf had to go in the early 1900's because they could not co-extist with man when the inexhaustable number of wild animals are not available.
The sad irony of this whole thing is a bunch of educated idiots with emotional so called enviro's introduced a wolf that was not endangered, or even close to it. Now our way of life out west, for those of us who hunt and graze livestock off the land is in view of becoming extinct unless this plague is controlled to no more than a few hundred animals.
>biased given where it was
>published but it sounds to
>me like there is a
>real need to control wolves.
It's only bias if it's untrue. Here it is the 9th of September and only 4 wolves have been killed by sportsmen, I think it's starting to become obivious that hunters aren't going to control the population.
Before the settlers arrived there were thousands of wild animals available for one pack of wolves to eat from. They could kill 2 to 3 hundred animals a year and the population supported it. With only a few hundred elk available in a given unit a pack of wolves can wipe them out in one year, then they must move on to the next unit. When several packs wipe the majority of wild animals out there's only one place to go, the domestic livestock. As the cliche goes you ain't seen nothin yet applies here for depredation on domestic livestock. The wolf had to go in the early 1900's because they could not co-extist with man when the inexhaustable number of wild animals are not available.
The sad irony of this whole thing is a bunch of educated idiots with emotional so called enviro's introduced a wolf that was not endangered, or even close to it. Now our way of life out west, for those of us who hunt and graze livestock off the land is in view of becoming extinct unless this plague is controlled to no more than a few hundred animals.
R
RUTTROE
Guest
Frontier I hear ya and we need to protect our hard working ranchers. I guess the Idaho judge still needs to come to a decision also. Lets hope that he will be in favor to continue the Idaho wolf depredation.
S.S.& S.
S.S.& S.
I
ID_Paul
Guest
This battle was won, but the war isn't over. The judge's full opinion is available to read at http://missoulian.com/pdf_6e8e00c0-9d65-11de-80b2-001cc4c002e0.html
Sounds to me like he has already made up his mind on the main lawsuit - back to the ESA they go. I hope I'm wrong on that.
I haven't heard any news on when the lawsuit will be heard. Have you?
Sounds to me like he has already made up his mind on the main lawsuit - back to the ESA they go. I hope I'm wrong on that.
I haven't heard any news on when the lawsuit will be heard. Have you?
R
RUTTROE
Guest
I haven't heard when the lawsuit will be heard, either. Spokane news is covering this issue quite well. I will let you know if I hear anything more up here in the Panhandle.
