Wolves ARE Back on E-List

PleaseDear

PleaseDear

Long Time Member
Messages
10,590
Judge orders protections reinstated for wolf August 5th, 2010 @ 4:01pm By MATT VOLZ Associated Press Writer

HELENA, Mont. (AP) - A federal judge has ordered endangered species protections reinstated for the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho.

The federal government last year removed protections for wolves in those two states but not in Wyoming. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy says in his ruling Thursday the government's decision was a political solution and does not comply with the federal Endangered Species Act.

Molloy says the entire Rocky Mountain wolf population must be either listed or removed as an endangered species, but the protections can't be separated by state.



Robb
 
Well then remove them all. That would be the easy solution. Those damn wolve loving fruit cakes! When they don't have anything but the wolf to look at they may realize what they have done.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-10 AT 06:34PM (MST)[p]This is not good. Because in effect he set a precedent where it's all or nothing in states where they are present. Given that they are petitoning for new areas and plan to reintroduce in other states they will always be behind the 8 ball in some underestablished state. We already have issues in Az. not having enough wolves in that the fed is looking at increasing their protection. They will use this ruling against us saying that they haven't reached predetermined levels in other places. Of course while we're attainting those levels they will protect the wolves in all areas further damaging hunting. I know some of you felt that this was all Wyomings fault but in reality it probably was part of the plan to keep stalling the process. Wolves are already in ajoining states UT, Co. and they'll petiton for preset levels with the expansion of their range. It's time to put the pressure on politically and put and end to this crap. It's an never ending abuse of the legal system to further their agenda and enoughs enough.

It's time for the hunting community to ban together and get the US congress involved and put an end to this crap forever. There's more of us involved than the minority of tree huggers that keep working to eliminate hunting in our country. Look at all the lost jobs and other economic factors involved and you can't eat a damn wolf! But we can send a loud messsage by putting politicans that support this nonsense in the unemployment line!! That's a message that will come thru load and clear!!
 
"When they don't have anything but the wolf to look at they may realize what they have done."

Whole-Lot,
They do realize what they are doing, make no mistake, they intend to sacrifice everything and anything to take away the North American's reason for owning a firearm.

These folks have absolutely no interest in the wolf or it's prey. For them to express a love for nature and wildlife is a fraud of the highest order.

The wolf is as much a tool for winning their war against the American outdoor lifestyle as a mujahid uses a road side bomb to kill our young men. These folks believe they must conquer us and right now the wolf is an effective weapon in this phase of their offensive.

Am I paranoid or am I right?

DC
 
>"When they don't have anything but
>the wolf to look at
>they may realize what they
>have done."
>
>Whole-Lot,
>They do realize what they are
>doing, make no mistake, they
>intend to sacrifice everything and
>anything to take away the
>North American's reason for owning
>a firearm.
>
>These folks have absolutely no interest
>in the wolf or it's
>prey. For them to
>express a love for nature
>and wildlife is a fraud
>of the highest order.
>
>The wolf is as much a
>tool for winning their war
>against the American outdoor lifestyle
>as a mujahid uses a
>road side bomb to kill
>our young men. These
>folks believe they must conquer
>us and right now the
>wolf is an effective weapon
>in this phase of their
>offensive.
>
>Am I paranoid or am I
>right?
>
>DC


I'd say you pretty much hit it on the head there bud!
 
as bad as it is...his ruling is prolly correct by the law......seems like a good time for the anti's to ask for grizzly protection in Alaska after what he just said...




JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
The reason they got this set up under federal protection in the first place was to take the control away from the states that way they could do their dirty little business with less pressure from the public. The only way to turn this mess around is to get the control returned to the states where it should have been in the first place. As long as they can get judgements like this they're creating more legal loopholes that allow them to keep tying this mess up for decades for each different specie. They now want to classify the wolves in AZ as a seperate subspecie to afford them more legal protection. Think they won't find ways to demonstrate that other subspecies inhabited other regions to allow them to keep furthering their agendas. D 13 they don't need that bear just yet there's probably a bunch of other wolf subspecies they can use to decimate our herds before they resort to a bear, besides it's much easier to hurt us with an animal like the wolf that can grow quicker and do more damage as it breeds more than once a year and has a 24% growth rate uncontrolled.
 
agree'd...but with this judges logic...how can a grizzly bear be protected in montana and not in alaska ???



JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
If the wolf numbers start to go through the roof, the Feds will be forced to delist them as an endangered species. Once done, they'll likely have to capitulate to Wyomings plan. That'll be good for a short time, but you'll then see the anti's file a suit over some other issue and we'll be right back in court. Our western State's need to ban together and keep pushing the issue towards the US Supreme court so we can get some management closure one way or another. Bt the way, anyone wonder why the repub's never did anything to rewrite the endangered species act when they controlled congress and the presidency the first six years of last decade. Kinda pizzes me off...
 
Taking D13er's point further. Why is it acceptable to separate wolf populations regionally, but not by state?

ie - upper midwest, alaska, western states.

I am sure Buzz will chime in and tell me how stupid I am (if not him, one of his buddies from the 'montana site').
 
I think the judge may have actually helped the states with his ruling. There is tons of case law that supports that the states DFW have been a good caretakers of the nations wildlife. It's only recently in the antis eyes that they have been allowed to perpetuate the viewpoint that the states haven't done a good job and allowed all species to flourish. The states set the seasons for each specie in their states and that's why you can hunt elk by the regs of each state not the federal regs it's only under the ESA that the feds regulate the controls. He may have opened an avenue for the states to pursue collectively to get the controls away thru a change in legislation and support in the courts. It's no secret in Washington that this thing has gotten way out of hand and the system wasn't really broken before and the government wasn't picking up the tab on billions of dollars of expenses that the anti's lawsuits and studies have run up. This ruling may actually be the catalyst that rights the ship in this mess by getting it into the courts. The Taulman mess went away with the blink of an eye when the right people got involved and maybe it's time the powers to be in Washington did the right thing to stop the abuse of our system and protected the individuals rights to utilize our wildlfie and fisheries for recreational purpose.
 
Bottom line is - WY must put together a plan that will be acceptable to the ahole feds so they can be delisted...again.

And killed (legally)...again.

Personally, I liked WY's plan and I hate compromise (on this topic), but....
 
While we are racing back and forth bumping into one another over the Canadian wolf in Id, Wy, and Mt. Sending our limited recourses and fighting amongst ourselves over rich hunters vs not-rich hunter, elitist hunters vs black-gun hunters, SFW vs "averagejoes", archers vs center-fire slobs, conservation tags draw ratios vs public draw ratios, our enemy is 10 jumps and 15 years out in front of us "rugged individuals".

While we sweat the Canadian wolf and they stretch that front out for as long as they can, in their war room, they are already planning what to do when we finally. after many more years of time, energy and money, win the Canadian wolf skirmish. By then they will already be well established on another front, ready to implement and roll out a different attack that has been planned and the ground work has already been established. They'll already have their elected officials in position, their judges identified and indoctrinated and have rehearsed their next ten moves.

I doubt it will be the grizzly, too similar to the wolf and by then we'll know how to fight and win that kind of battle. Besides, by the time the wolf's eaten his fill there won't be a wild food source left for bears.

Nope, I'm betting the next battle will be a different kind of issue. I wish I knew what it would be but if I where half as smart as they are I'd figure it out and try to do my own positioning with the legislature and the judicial folks so I had a napalm surprise in place before they roll out their new tank. Some of you "intellectually extra gifted types" might do better worrying a little less about split seasons and ballistics and put some of that "fierce independence and bravo" into infiltrating these organizations and get to work figuring out what's coming next, all the while continuing to accelerate the wolf issue to the Supreme Court so we can get a decision as to if we still have an American lifestyle or not.

Just me being paranoid, still.

DC
 
This is destined to end up in the Supreme Court! How long it will take is anyones guess, but it is more important that ever, to make the right vote in November!

I will personally shoot any coyote, large or small, black, white, gray or tan that I see!
 
I agree with NickW. I understand we all want to obey the law but its time to draw the line and just start shooting these things every chance we get. The only garuntee in this issue will be the lack of common sense used by our government but that will not stop me from using some.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never has and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
 
2lumpy your 2nd post was spot on. These anti-hunting scums of the earth DO NOT support wildlife what so ever. They are using the wolf as a means to limit or eliminate hunting. Predators are our competition so they will support the competition to the extent that hunters have nothing left to hunt.

If they were in support of wildlife they would utilize some of there energy and resources towards re-establishing species (prey & predators alike) in historic areas. Make no mistake about it they have no interest in wildlife.

This is just my opinion but we hunters should take this position and use it against the anti-hunters. I don't know how much they outnumber us but if we could get to the non-hunter voters and educate them that would be huge. Non-hunters are the majority of voters. They are voters like my mom, my/your neighbor, the mailman, the clerk at the grocery store, etc. These people are not anti-hunting nor are they pro-hunting. They are just misinformed at this point and tend to vote emotionally rather than logically. They really need to hear both sides.

JR
 
Well,i appear to be in the minority here, but I see no evidence that the American public will have a problem with wolves replacing hunters as the primary method of controlling big game populations.

I look at Yellowstone National Park, world famous as a great place to view multiple wildlife species. After 15 years of wolves, the moose are basically gone, elk herds at less than half of historic highs, no evidence that deer or antelope populations are increasing. Do you hear any outcry over that from the public? No, in fact, the chance to view the wolves is now one of the driving factors in people deciding to visit Yellowstone.

I think American society is perfectly comfortable with trading elk populations that are sufficient to sustain large scale hunting for smaller populations held in check by predators. We are kidding ourselves if we think Americans en masse will be supportive of reducing/eliminating wolves to increase hunting opportunities.

As a 60 year old hunter, I am sad to think about what is going to happen over the next 20 years, even though it will likely not significantly limit my opportunities. As a father, it is depressing that my children, and potential grandchildren, will likely not have the same level of involvement with the outdoors and hunting that my grandfather, father and I had. Unfortunately, the ongoing societal trends away from a rural, resource dependent society to an urban society make that future the most likely outcome.

I apologize for this depressing post. Is it time to go hunting yet?

Scoutdog
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-10 AT 07:21AM (MST)[p]

Okay I'm going to take a stab at explaining what happened so we can understand and BUZZ is the individual that brough clarity to the situation on another site. If anyone wants to shed some clarity or corrct me if I've misstated anything feel free!

As I understand it the 3 states ID, MT, Wy collectiviely entered into an binding agreement in 93 or 94 where all control plans would have be approved by the USFWS to allow the control of wolves in the tristate area. ID and MT had approved plans in place and hunted last year and WY for what ever reason didn't get their plan fully approved or meet the conditional requirements of the agreement. So judge Malloy had to rule against the states because they were not in compliance with the agreement. It was an all or nothing proposition and the judge had to rule the way he did.

The thing that amazed me about this is the the states collectively would place their own wildlife in jeopardy because of nonperformance by another state, over which they have no control. This speaks volumes about the lack of legal accumen in watching out for each states individual interest in the matter no disrespect intended. I'm sure they felt to get it done the unifed path was the answer because the process had been so frustrating and unbinding on the introduction parties behalf, yet the states individually appeared to be losing ground. The fact they kept moving the established numbers baseline and action after action of the states was disallowed in the process only aggrevated the situation. So now we're here and it appears that all hunts are cancelled until the three states conditions of the agreement can be met.

The judge didn't say that ID or MT didn't meet the agreement and since he had allowed the hunts to go on in those states last year it would seem reasonable to think they had done their part in the process.

I don't like whats happened any more than anyone else on here but based on what happened I can now understand why the judge ruled the way he did and the lack of performance was on the states level in the matter.

What bothers me about this is the all or nothing agreement and the weight it seemed to carry in the matter. Knowing that the groups are now looking to get subspecies of the wolf classifed as it's own specie for the ESA we may have set a precedent here for the future that may come back to bite us or at the very least it may be a way for them to open avenues for future legal challenges. Remember that the wolves in AK were not part of the process but each state going forward should make sure that it's guarding it's own interests and not relying on the actions of another state. To be fair, the states most likely pooled their funding to help defray legal expenses and felt that the overall representation of the 3 states would carry more weight in the matter. While we had workable controls in place, the binding language of the agreement was the point that sealed our fate. I hold no hope that the 9th circut court will overturn anything on this matter because they're collectively viewed as the most liberal court in the land and Judge Malloy did his job.

It's time to get the hunters awakened and get Congress involved! A couple of quick laws put in place to allow the states to manage all wildlife and initiate protective legislation that allows the American public to utilize it's wildlife & fisheries for recreational purpose should put this mess to rest for once and for all. The ESA has been thoroughly abused in the courts and it's time the american public stopped picking up the tab for the ill concieved management plan of a fraternity that really just wants to control peoples lives and doesn't really care about sound wildlife management. Give the states some protection where they have the right to manage their resources in a manner that best serves it's residents and works to allow endangered species protection free of outside influence and legal expense. That way we'll create more jobs, have better tax revenues and secure our wildlife and fisheries future in a manner that's more consistant with our heritage and actually allows our vast resources to be utilized and enjoyed on a much broader scope.
 
Good/fair post Boskee. I understand why he ruled the way he did.

Last year wolves were managed on a per state basis and it worked well. There is no biological reason for wolves to be managed regionally, versus by state. So - lets get the rules changed so wolves can be managed on a per state basis.

I get the 'he had no choice' argument, but it certainly seems to me that some rules/agreements are set aside in order to keep wolves listed and other rules are followed to the letter of the law, to also keep wolves listed.

BTW = I appreciate your post because you said it all without being a total ahole.
 
Good, balanced post. Not the typical redneck, "I hate and will shoot any wolf," junk that actually hurts us more than it helps. These fire-breathing hotheads (e.g. DP and Lobo Watch) have misrepresented data in a way that makes us look like idiots and doesn't add any legitimacy to our goals. This will be a good fundraising ruling for DP and SFW, believe me it will.

One thing being overlooked is that the state I live in (Wyoming) didn't get the message. A year ago, this same judge gave off a warning shot to Wyoming to get its stubborn butt into gear and mirror the plans of MT and ID. But due to the ignorance and pigheadedness of our state, they cost themselves and MT and ID the right to manage wolves (as we've been warning them for a year). The antis did their part, but so did my state. I believe that would WY have come up with a mirrored plan in this year that the judge would have had no choice but to throw out the case (since this is what it was based upon). I wish our politicians would have taken it more seriously, but it doesn't seem to be very important to them.

As for the post regarding "what will the antis target next?" They've already fired that shot. They have filed a petition with the EPA to ban all lead ammunition (for hunting, target shooting, pistol shooting, and shotgun shooting). THIS is a much bigger threat to all of us. Though there are alternatives, the cost of them is so high that it will, without a doubt, severely impact participation numbers. Just something to keep an eye on.
 
We are in for some hard times and changes.

1. Government sues AZ for protecting their borders, because they wont do what they are suppose to do.

2. Fed Judge over rules Prop 8. Marriage between a man and woman. The majority of millions of voters approved. One Judge stops it.

3. Federal Judge Votes to protect wolf populations that are well over the numbers origionally agreed upon. Political decision.

What happened to states rights? Think of the waste of time and money to fight our governments and Federal Judges decisions. What a joke. We are in for some hard battles and changes the next few years to come.
 
WyGriz - Did Molloy send a warning shot to WY to get its butt in gear or did he send a subtle message to earth justice?

If you want wolves relisted this all or none states things is a problem for me. wink. wink.

What do you think?
 
I agree. Having worked on and with large predators in the past, the connectivity argument only truly makes sense in completely isolated environments where no interaction is possible. This isn't the case here. Genetic exchange happens constantly within the Northern Rockies wolf populations. It's the same argument being used with grizzlies and is just as scientifically ludicrous.

That being said, science, the "law", and politics never mesh well. It's about reality and the world we live in. The politicians in WY (if they are interested in this subject) should have recognized this fact and made changes. I just don't think it was that big of an issue for the state legislature here in Wyoming. Not wanting to compromise is fine and good, but gets very little accomplished in such important matters. I also don't think mirroring the MT and ID plans would have been a bad compromise, because it would have resulted in wolf management and taken away this legal (though not scientific) argument.

And yes, the judge let the antis know what to target in their argument.
 
Idaho Fish and Game Statement on Wolf Ruling​
​

We are very disappointed by District Judge Donald Molloy?s ruling, returning gray wolves to endangered species protection.

?This is a major setback for responsible wildlife management in Idaho. We have demonstrated our ability to conduct a hunting season in an orderly fashion,? Idaho Fish and Game Commission Chairman Dr. Wayne Wright. ?It's a shame when legal twists can trump wildlife management. This is not how the Endangered Species Act should work.?

We don't know yet what this means for the upcoming wolf season. But for the time being we have suspended wolf tag sales until we've had a chance to further review the decision.

?We?re frustrated; we're angry; we're disappointed,? Idaho Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth said. ?We?ve played by the rules, but his decision allows procedural technicalities to overcome sound science and common sense.?

Wolves south of Interstate 90 have reverted to management under a section of the Endangered Species Act known as the 10(j) rule, allowing some flexibility to respond to livestock depredation and impacts on big game. The rule also allows individuals on private or public land to kill a wolf that is in the act of attacking their stock animals or dogs. Wolf north of Interstate 90 in Idaho are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Idaho still must follow the rule of law, and we will look at all legal options to see what's the best way out of this mess. Fish and Game still will work to resolve conflicts between wolves and other game animals, including proposals to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wolf control actions to protect dwindling game herds and reduce livestock predation.




TONY MANDILE
48e63dfa482a34a9.jpg

How To Hunt Coues Deer
 
Molloy is the epitome of hypocrisy!He based his decision on the fact that not all 3 states are on board with each other makes it a political,rather than scientific reason for delisting.He is contradicting himself from his earlier decision.Id and Mt basically capitulated to the feds with their plans.They should have stuck to their guns like Wy did,IMO.Sportsmen will never win this battle.There are too many of us who are worried about how many tags they did or didn't draw.The ESA needs a total overhaul.Wolves engangered?Whatever.Canadian grey wolves are not endangered,nor are they(or have they ever been)native to Wy.This so called "experiment" involved an "experimental,non-essential" population of a non-native species introduced to areas they did not previously inhabit!A total bastardization of the endangered species act!Our government not only permitted this,they condoned it.How are we supposed to fight that?When these groups can hand-pick the judges they want for each fight;and that one person can make a decision that affects millions of people,what kind of justice is that?The environmentalists run this country!Unless outdoorsmen unite for this fight,you can pretty much kiss your hunting heritage goodbye.Enjoy it while you can,because your kids aren't going to.
 
"The rule also allows individuals on private or public land to kill a wolf that is in the act of attacking their stock animals or dogs"

Lots of dogs being euthanized every day. Adopt a dog, bait a wolf.... Terry
 
Be careful with the "they're not a native subspecies" argument. That's one you'll never win and that the desperate have latched on to. Remember, we sportsmen have introduced Rocky Mountain elk into areas where they were not a native subspecies (e.g. KY, PA, AR, Dakotas, etc.), because they are all we had left. The same with bighorn sheep. California bighorns were not native to the Dakotas, it was the Audubon's bighorn and Rocky Mountain, but they're all we had. And don't even get me started with turkeys and the Chinese pheasant we love to hunt. All I'm saying is this non-native "Canadian" gray wolf argument will get you nowhere, except into trouble. You'll never win with it. Let's stick to facts and science that will win this battle.

Just sayin'.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-10 AT 12:52PM (MST)[p]3 things of interest in the news.

1. The federal government sues AZ for protecting their borders from the expenses and problems from Illegal immigration.

2. A federal Judge over turns Prop 8, which millions of voters (the majority of citizens) voted for. One Judge changed what the majority of what people voted for.

3. A federal Judge voted to list wolves back on the Endangered species list. Even when populations have far exceeded objectives. States can't manage their own wildlife. It was a political decision. Nothing to do with biology.

We are in for some hard battles and times in the future. Get involved. Vote for people who best represent your values. Family and hunting are important to me.

Having state rights to manage education, health care, and wildlife, etc. are important to me. There are big problems in the current system and government today.
 
My question is what is the Sportsman/ Hunter doing about it? Say average Joe. Nota! Last week anouther wolf in Ut. Killed one and wonded one sheep gaurd dogs. Them dogs are 100 lb dogs. He was seen limping away east of Coalville. Then the 2 others one killed near Preston and one in the Cache Unit. Right in the heart of one of our Limited big bull units. Guys stand up be heard! How ever it is you do it.
I just came back from the Idaho Panhandle for a week of Vacation and every where I went Wolf Track. Rutnbuck
 
Ya know it took more then 70 years to establish our Elk heards to a huntable sistanable heard. Now if we kill one illigaly it is wantful waste and dustruction!! We as sportsman put up big bucks to maintain our heards with out the wolf. They put the wolf in after the fact now the way I see it Who ever played a part in killing our elk/ with wolf should be charged with Wantful waste and distruction. Like putting a fox in a hen house.

Rutnbuck
 
So is the Federal Govt/Judge Molly going to refund license and tag fees for this year. I bought a license and a tag for wolf and it seems to me if I can't hunt, I should get my money back.???

HK
 
I am holding out a small hope that this could backfire on the wolf people. What if the Fish and wildlife service was to say ok, we will agree to accept Wyomings proposal and Montana and Idaho can accept the same regs? So instead of Wyoming getting on board, the F&W could get on board. If they agreed to treat all states the same, wouldn't that satisfy the judges requirements?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
It would only backfire for a short time, once wyoming wiped out all their wolves they (the fed) would be forced to put them back on the list for several years while they recovered in wyoming but continued thriving and devastating in MT/ID
 
I said this before and I believe it more now than ever.

These wolf people are like the neighborhood gang bangers. If Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will pay the protection money, they can hunt a few wolves. Idaho and Montana were scared to death so they agreed. Wyoming said hell no.

Now the gang bangers tell Wyoming, "get on board or we'll break Idaho and Montana's knee caps". Wyoming said hell no, so now Mallony (or whatever his name is) did just that.

Now people want to blame Wyoming. "We would still have our knee caps if it wasn't for that damned Wyoming".

They are going to shove the wolves down our throats one way or the other. At least I admire Wyoming for not signing on to the extortion. As for Idaho and Montana, they were going to break your knee caps in due time anyway, so quit whimpering like the girls that you are.

Eel
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-10 AT 10:38PM (MST)[p]Thats an interesting perspective eelgrass. Hey make no mistake about it the prowolf faction are respecting Wyoming right now for what they did for them not too them. You can stand there and get your head bashed in or you can cover and fire back when they get tired. MT & ID covered & waited and fired back while Wy. was getting the hell knocked out of them. What did their respectful stand do for our wildlife? Sometimes in order to win you have to play the game especially when you agreed to do it in the first place otherwise you lose Wyoming lost but the price will also be paid by MT & Id so how many hunting opportunity's will they lose collectively? Too damn many! I think it would have stung em worse to have the hunts going on in 3 states as opposed to none but that's just my perspective. Once delisted then they have to try to get the hunts stopped and the fed is sick of this mess and most likely would have made it more difficult for them to get them stopped because they complied with the agreement.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-10 AT 11:22PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-10 AT 11:21?PM (MST)

Eel stated: "At least I admire Wyoming for not signing on to the
extortion. As for Idaho and Montana, they were going to break your knee caps in due time anyway, so quit whimpering like the girls that you are."

Hey Eel, show me where any MT or ID guys are blaming Wyoming and whimpering like little girls?

Guess how many wolves were killed in MT and ID last year? Oh wait, you don't live here, so you probably couldn't give a damn.

Guess how many were killed by hunters last year under that "bad-ass stick it in their eye" management plan Wyoming has been following? Yeah, I thought so.

Easy for you to sit and make your smart ass comments from the cheap seats. I hope you never have to watch years of hard conservation work get messed up, but if you do, I doubt you will find much humor in ignorant comments from people who have been sitting on the sidelines.

You have obviously mistaken MT and ID hunters as people who would give a damn about your opinions, but please feel free to post them on this public forum.

Oh, what have you done to help solve the wolf problem? Kinda thought so.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Eel, I think you have it right, and for the blamers Wyoming had the first legal hunts killed almost 60 wolves and then got shut down on the hunting in an identical fashion to what just happened to Montana and Idaho. The USFWS accepted Wyomings plan and then it was rejected by a Fedral Judge so USFWS had to change it's tune, we didn't want wolves or sign on for them we got them thrown in our lap and told to pay for it and now we are in the worst way. If it wasn't one states plan it would be something else. I hope Malloy gets colon cancer and his @$$hole falls out
 
I understand the point that we need to be calm and approach this with a level head and the approach that we just got screwed again and are tired of taken it in the backside.

We just need to stand together no matter what and fight this thing with everything we have or hunting in the west is going to be a thing of the past.

I think we can live in balance with wolves and even grizzly bears but the states have to be able to manage them.

JR
 
BigFin, back in the 1970's one of our timber companies was forced to sell their land to create the Redwood National Park here in northern California. Hundreds of people lost their jobs and their way of life. Later more land was taken surrounding the park as a "buffer zone". More people lost their jobs.

I will not acknowledge the park. I have never been there and never will. I will not support it, and have no respect for anyone who does. If I'm still alive when the big fire comes (and it will), I'm pouring gas on it.

So, BigFin, go ahead and buy your little wolfie tag if they ever see fit to sell you one again. Show them that you bend over like a good little boy. And after you kill one, make a nice little wolfie rug, and post a picture here, to show everybody how proud you are.

I have my opinion and I really don't care if you like it or not.

Eel
 
Front page of the local newspaper today the WY governor stated Wyoming isn't changing its position and intends to continue the wolf fight. All the repub candidates one of whom will be the next governor stated the same thing. If nothing changes, we'll see the wolf population increase which may force the Feds to negotiate with WY. Before it was the Fed's telling Wyoming, you'll do it our way or you get nothing. Now it appears the shoe is on the other foot. The Fed's can't do anything without working out an agreement with Wyoming. If wolf numbers do increase significantly, the Feds lose a bunch of arguments about numbers, populations, etc., when Wyoming ultimately gets this thing to a Federal Appeals court or maybe even the Supreme court. At any rate WY appears to now be in the cat birds seat...
 
TripleBB:

I hope Wyoming doesn't give in on their plan. It is their plan and I am sure it reflects the values of their citizens. They need to stick to their guns and see if they can prevail.

They are pretty confident they will win, and I hope they do. If they lose, then they will make a decision of what is best for them.

That is the same directive used by the committees who formed of the MT and ID plans - do what is best for your citizens. Those plans reflect the conservation history and value of the citizens.

Eel would have people believe that MT and ID caved in, according to his Johnny bad-ass temperment and his ignorance of how the process worked and how many people contributed to the MT plan. If he had spent one second sitting in on a wolf committee meeting he would have quickly noticed that the committee was stacked with hunters and ranchers. And, he would probably feel a little less sure of his "bend over" analogies that he is so certain of and so willing to spew forth.

Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in MT, and I suspect the same for ID. The MT plan is a reflection of what the citizen-based wolf planning committee came up with. The fact that the MT plan is different from the WY plan is an expected outcome.

Who would expect ID and WY and MT to all have plans that look the same? I sure didn't.

Just because the MT and ID plans got accepted by the USFWS, doesn't make them right or wrong and it certainly is not a "bend over" or "cave in." They are a reflection of many thousands of hours of people working toward a management goal.

I suspect Wyoming's plan is the same thing. And if it is a reflection of what their citizens want, they should continue with their lawsuit against the Feds.

This is all part of the possible outcomes when this things started. Anyone who was involved in this process knew it could end up this way.

That doesn't make Wyoming the fall guy. Doesn't mean ID and MT bent over, as some uninformed blowhards like to state

Just means that each state did what it thinks is best for them.

Even though the pro-wolfers have used this technicality to secure a temporary injunction on all states, it will eventually get sorted out and the states will eventually gain management control.

How many wolves will have to be killed by the state agencies until that time, who knows? When will we get another wolf hunting season? No one knows that, either, but we will eventually get one.

And in the interim, Eel can continue with his opinions, as uninformed and ignorant as they may be. I mean after all, he has spent so much time involved in meetings related to the MT wolf plan he certainly would know that it was a cave in and not a reflection of Montana's conservation history and values.

And not living in Montana, I am sure Eel knows what is best for us, just like the big government knows what is best for us. Thanks Eel, we appreciate your in depth understanding of our values and we are grateful for your attempts to save us from ourselves.

Friggin' hilarious.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Just kill all the sick little bastard wolves!!! I want to hunt elk!! not get eaten by a wolf doggone it!!!
 
+ 100 Eel!
Every state has it's own elected people and those representatives dictate the will of the people. It may not seem fair to many of us, but thats the way it runs! I strongly support states rights, even when I don't agree! Every time the federal governments gets it's nose into states rights, we all lose!
 
Eel and nick, little info for you. Had Wyoming had a management plan that mirrored Montana or Idaho, the 3 year probationary period would have been over. Wyoming could have then went to their predatory status for the rest of the state that they want so badly. This re listing wouldn't be happening. All states would have control. Politics over common sense prevails in the cowboy state.







I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
You make some good points Boskee. My biggest objection is that you feel confident in giving this decision to the courts... I think it should be a straight up vote... The people rule, not judges, not courts. Put it to the people.
Of course, then it'll end up like Prop 8 in Cali... A Pro-Wolf judge will rule that the vote is null... I thought our elected officials were supposed to keep the judicial system in check...??

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
>
>Eel and nick, little info for
>you. Had Wyoming had a
>management plan that mirrored Montana
>or Idaho, the 3 year
>probationary period would have been
>over. Wyoming could have then
>went to their predatory status
>for the rest of the
>state that they want so
>badly. This re listing wouldn't
>be happening. All states would
>have control. Politics over common
>sense prevails in the cowboy
>state.
>
>
>
>
I wouldn't bet a dime on that.

The anti's argument would have been different but they still would have fought and I'm betting the hunts would not be happening for some other BS reason....

great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
BUZZH is probably drinking a toast to this ruling. In 20 yrs from now we will probably look back and realize that this was the beginning of the end for hunting as we knew it. If you think this is hyperbole then please tell me one battle we have won in this war against wolves? Does anybody realistically think there is a chance? We as hunters will continue to suck hind tit and it keeps getting drier.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20171002_143215.NM (2).jpg
Running bucks.jpg
8EC2FAD9-DADE-414E-B4E7-A6DCDFD934C2.jpeg
8EBCECC4-F598-4EA0-811B-58B20F06B921.jpeg
20211115_140752.jpg
B36E7F54-F777-4251-A9EC-D21D5527D003.jpeg
DSCN3364.JPG
DSC03176.jpg
Screenshot_20191022-195002.png
IMG_3183.JPG
A5A8FB4D-213A-4ACC-9CCB-D8219A1B3928.jpeg
IMG_9310.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom