Idahoans Sign Wolf Petition

M

misner5

Guest
Here's our chance to at least let the country know that we want the wolf managed if not removed from our state all together. If you want the wolf managed, sign this petition. All petitions must be submitted before 30 Apr 2006. At this point I don't know where you can go to sign but hopefully I'll find out soon or maybe the locations will be posted on the website attached. If nothing else, maybe we can get some management action sooner than what is curently being done. Wolf numbers met the objective long ago and here we sit not able to manage the numbers. If we sit idly by the wolf numbers will continue to increase while our deer/elk herds decrease. Look at Yellowstone, 18,000+ elk in 1995, currently around 9,000 remain. It's up to you and I to at least try preventing our herds from dwindling like Yellowstones.

If I find out locations, I'll post them.


http://www.idahoanti-wolfcoalition.org/
 
lets stand to together for our hunting brothers in idaho...they need our support...we can do it... we are stronger than the greenies!!!

lets stand for what we believe in


solrac
 
Do you know if 'net' petitions mean anything? Last time I looked into it unless you have a live signature you're wasting your time.

Oh and do a little reserch there are more than 9000 elk left in jellystone....
 
I am 110% FOR Wolf management. But don't you think 18,000 elk for the Northern Herd was a tad outrageous? They were dying all over the place from starvation during rough periods of winter. Now they aren't as overcrowded and dying slow painful deaths. If you never saw it for yourself then hold your remarks. Overpopulation is as ugly as it gets! The wolves never cut the population in half like everyone wants to believe.
 
Correction: The number given was for the northern Yellowstone elk population. Here's a quote from Montana F&G "The nationally known Northern Yellowstone elk herd, numbering about 9,500 animals, is notably smaller, about half the size it was in the mid-1990's. Wildlife managers recently learned that its members are notably older, too." here's more "The northern herd is fast becoming a geriatric elk population which may reduce the herd's productivity and its ability to recover from recent population declines," said Tom Lemke, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologist in Livingston. "The aging of this population, and the smaller number of elk calves we're seeing survive, will continue to influence management decisions and to reduce hunter opportunity in this area."

I agree that animals dieing slowly on the winter ranges is bad but this isn't about that, it's about managing the exploding wolf population that will dwindle the herds down to the extent you'd be more apt to see a wolf than an elk if you traveled or hunted in our great state. It may take a few more years but if these eating machines aren't controlled, it will happen.

Wouldn't you rather prevent a severe elk decline verses react to one? Personally I'd rather prevent it verse reacting to it and having to wait years for the population to rebound.

It's your decision.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-06 AT 08:18AM (MST)[p]I am doing my part to keep a balance. It's everyone's job to do so. I don't believe that the Northern Herd ever existed for the Hunter. Hunter's have been very lucky to have had the opportunities to hunt elk December thru February. Not too many years ago along the firing line, whoever would brave dodging bullets to be the first one to put their tag on the dead elk got it, barring the occasional fist fight and death threat. Is that the kind of hunting we are trying to hold on to? I hope not. Before that the Park would have people go in and just shoot elk for population control. Now things will hopefully be headed in the right direction for management. It's a great science experiment and hopefully one that we can learn from one way or another. Yes, we need to fight for a balance.
 
Here's a little more trivia..."About 160 adult-aged wolves will fan out from Yellowstone National Park this winter, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Adult wolves eat about nine pounds of meat a day, which averages to about 12 adult elk per year, Bangs said."

When wolves were first reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, biologists predicted that a recovered population of about 100 would kill about 1,200 big game animals a year. About 160 adult wolves will kill and eat approximately 1,800 big game animals a year, Bangs predicted. That is an increase of 50 percent.

Idaho has at least 600 wolves. Those 600 are confirmed animals, there are plenty of unconfirmed but no official tally. You'd be safe to estimate 700+ x 12 = 8400. That doesn't include the numbers they kill and don't eat which could actually double the figure.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-06 AT 08:41AM (MST)[p]The wolves in the Yellowstone area, in my view (I'm not a wolf biologist), need some hands on management through limited take (they may need it in other areas too). I believe their numbers have gone up much quicker than people had estimated, only a few years ago. I think there likely are enough wolves to open a take season on them, but to remove them completely would, to start, violate ESA, and in short, be completely irresponsible not to mention stupid ? that's right, I think it would be stupid to go back to the ?no-wolf? days. .

I also believe wolf management may be a little more complicated than just opening a season or issuing a few tags for their take. No matter what we do, we never can do just one thing. The systems are too complicated for that type of narrow thinking. I think total wolf/elk numbers, and their ratio to one another, might well be a management issue that will gather more attention but one that is very complicate. I know wolves and elk do live together and in fact they evolved together and in areas where their numbers are in balance, both are hunted. This does not mean they are killed in great numbers, but they are hunted.

However, I also believe that if we, as a society want more elk, we have to consider the mortality of both elk, and wolves, whether that is take by humans, cars, illness, predation, or natural mortality.. There always will be elk, and wolves together, the wolves will not kill all the elk. There always will be a demand to hunt elk and wolves. To me, the key to this balance is to determine how many elk, and how many wolves we want. I don't think we will get it right all the time, but we do need a goal and we do need an adaptive management plan that will allow us to increase or decrees harvest as necessary to meet our management objectives. We cant have it like it was in the early 90's, those days are over, so, lets move on and start the discussion about what and how to manage in the new generation where wolves and elk will live together...

It will be bad for everyone if we just turn our backs on this and let the wolves, bears, and elk all fend for themselves. We intervened, we value elk, some value wolves, and now we need to do the responsible thing and figure out how we all are going to have our demands met. I think it's possible, but it's going to look a little different than it did in the mid 90?s. .
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-06 AT 12:08PM (MST)[p]I only used Yellowstone as an example...my concern is outside of Yellowstone in the greater Idaho area. If all they did was put wolves in Yellowstone and allowed any strays to be controlled, I wouldn't mind one bit but that's not what happened. We have wolves coming out our ears and they've spread to almost every part of Idaho and are effecting all elk herds and some drastically. Now I know the other predators are taking their toll as well but we're doing what we can to manage them while the wolves go unchecked and it appears any attempt to manage them is going to get locked up in court for years. The reintro plan said when 30 packs were established they'd be removed from the ESA list, we have over 60 packs and they're still listed and likely will stay listed for many years to come unless hunters start waking up and taking some action.
 
I agree that they should be fair game once they leave the Park. No argument here, although it has to be done tactfully.
 
Interesting read guys. The thing that first comes to mind on this subject is that we as hunters, kind of replaced wolves as a means of management. Think about it, when the west was being settled, the wolves were here in force. They helped manage the heards. Now that we're here, and managing the heards, the need for wolves as a means of management ceases to exist. But now that the wolves are back, we're competing with them. What do you think?

How do we manage them? I'm not a biologist, I don't know.

Michael~All Gods creatures welcome... right next to the mashed potatoes and gravy.
 
Hey Mike, I think you're on the right track, however, there were people hunting elk, in some cases nearly to their end, long before Euro America arrived. The point is that elk, wolves, bears, and other game have always been hunted and have, for thousands of years, help sustain a human culture in North America.

Today, our challenge, as a society, is to decide how much of each we need/want. I think that in some cases, particularly when it comes to elk and wolves, there is a balance. I think we need to determine what mix of wolf take and human take of elk we are willing to accept. Then, allocate a certain number of elk and deer and moose, and goats, and, and, and, to each.

This will not be easy. It will come at a considerable economic price for some. However, over the long run, I believe that the proper allocation of elk will help to balance the total costs with the true benefits.
 
It is more than just the wolves hitting the elk. A friend has them on a elk herd that winters behind his house and there are 12 wolves there. They kill 1 elk about every 5 days. I will be going up next month to see if I can video some.
The bears I have seen and have talked to some other people and they ride trails in the spring and have seen bears following the herds and 2 different guys told me that they saw bears killing calves after they drop them. I have found bears around or near where elk in the spring. Friends are starting to carry rifles with them and shooting the bears when they are out. But feel the bears do more damage than wolves are.
Just my 2 cents.

fca2e9e9.jpg
 
Who to contact to sign petition, you MUST be an Idaho resident and registered to vote.

Ron Gillett Stanley 208.774.2980
John Cranny Salmon 208.756.4276
Jim Scouten Moore 208.554.4181
Gordon Peterson Rexburg 208.356.9630
Dave Underwood American Falls 208.221.3700
Ron Landon Blackfoot 208.604.4608
Kent Howell Preston 208.747.3942
John Nelson St. Maries 208.689.3372
John Walters Calder 208.245.4423
Star Kelso Coeur D'alene
Sue Honas Pocatello 208.233.4240
Sue Honas Pocatello 208.241.4725
Mark Deaton Twin Falls 208.733.1553 X-101
 
Wolves absolutely need to be managed. We will never have a true balance in America again because to have a true balance you will have to reintroduce the buffalo back to where it can sustain the wolf. In other places where you have the wolf you also have vast herds of caribou as an adequate food source. Of course the wolf is going to take elk, deer, cattle and sheep in order to survive whether we have buffalo or caribou. But buffalo used to be the true balance and the main food source of the wolf when balance was an accurate statement. There is no way to reintroduce the buffalo back to an adequate food source due to the way our land is broken up with fences and interstates. Having the wolf is not a bad thing but having too many wolves is a bad thing. As stated above we are in a learning process to determine what the proper number of wolf to elk ratio will be.
As far as overpopulation of elk goes, I feel that there was never a reason for us to ever have an overpopulation. How many people wait years just for a chance to harvest an elk? If the oppurtunity is available to the public and if the public are made aware of the oppurtunity then I feel that adequate numbers of elk can be taken in order to sustain a healthy population. Just my opinion. fatrooster.
 
So this is going to be a trial and error experience? Jeeze, this could be really bad, but then again it could be a real success.

I also have a question about wolves. I know that with coyotes, you can shoot every yote you see, and in the spring, the litters will just increase in size to compensate. Are wolves the same? Is there an effective way to manage them? Or have they unleashed something they can't control?

Michael~All Gods creatures welcome... right next to the mashed potatoes and gravy.
 
I'm no expert but historically wolf populations have been managable. Wolves have different social structures and a different reproduction capacity than do coyotes. Consider that the coyotes never were eliminated durring the days of predetor control, with 1080, but the wolf, girzzly bear, mountain lions in some places, and eagles, were nearly wiped out. If youre really interested in the subject of how and why predators were quickly reduced in numbers just look up the, "Animal Damage Control Act of 1931."

The Act gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to investigate and control certain predatory or wild animals and nuisance mammal and bird species.

In Summary, Animal Damage Control: The Secretary is authorized to conduct investigations, experiments, and tests to determine the best methods of eradication, suppression, or bringing under control mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, gophers, ground squirrels, jack rabbits, brown tree snakes, and other animals injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wild game animals, fur-bearing animals and birds. Another purpose of these investigations is to protect stock and other domestic animals through the suppression of rabies and tularemia in predatory or other wild animals. The Secretary is also directed to conduct campaigns for the destruction or control of these animals. In carrying out the Act, the Secretary may cooperate with states, individuals, agencies and organizations. ? 426

I believe wolf numbers, in areas where they can be harvested, can be controled. However, I'm nost sure how. I dont know if by just indiscriminatley killing wolves we can keep their numbers at healty levels, or if we have to harvest certain one's from the pack.
 
Without management there will no doubt be a significant decrease on all of our herds. Not just elk. Wolves will eat, period. Three states have presented three biologically sound managment plans that will meet all of the objectives the USFG stated would be necessary for deenlistment. Wyomng's, the one that is apparently intolerable to the idiots in other parts of the country is specifically designed to maintain the objectives in the orginal target area while curbing the spread of wolves. The population of wolves has significantly exceded the USFG objective for deenlistment. It goes back to people in another part of the country infringing upon the soverign rights of people in another state. Yeah, they will deenlist as soon as we do it as they want and we will foot the bill. Who is going to pay for it? The hunters are going to pay for it in Wyoming through increased license fees and probably wolf management assessments for some areas. I'll pull no punches for you guys out of the tristate area. If the costs of management trickle down to the hunters, your going to find alot of us locals lobbying strongly for that to be placed upon nonresident tags. I realize that you guys may not have supported the reintroduction, but this is a problem that was forced upon us by out of state entities and a problem we are having to deal with 24-7, 365 days a year.
 
The wolf proponents will never allow regulation of wolf populations either by limited take or by any other means. Idaho wolves have exceeded the recovery goal both in individual numbers and in breeding pack numbers. Now the Animal folks are lined up to sue over any talk of delisting or population control. Grizzlies same deal. The "Experts" said initially that the GYC needed a population of 600 grizzlies to be "recovered". That number has been exceeded. With the talk of delisting, the grizzly "Experts" now say that a population of 2,000-3,000 grizzlies is needed to make the grizzly bear "recovered". Furthermore, lawsuits (any surprise?) are promised. Just what are all these unregulated wolves and grizzlies going to be eating ten years from now? Moose and elk permit numbers are down in eastern Idaho this year and last. I think I can see where we are headed with this deal and it doesn't bode well for deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep or antelope, as well aas a variety of other wildlife. I'm going to sign any petition I can find that might lead to control of these varmints.
 
A couple comments.

For starters the anti-wolf group will have no success. They've been ranting and carrying on for several years and havent done anything about wolves. I wouldnt and wont be wasting my time and effort for ZERO results.

Another thing I hear constantly is that wolves were "forced" on Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming by people that dont live in those states. Its a convienient excuse, but its not the truth. There were many, many, many scoping meetings throughout Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming prior to wolf reintroduction. There was at least 3 open comment periods to address the issue of wolf reintroduction or even if it should happen at all.

The VAST majority, around 90% of public comments from all citizens were in favor of wolf reintroduction. Idaho and Montana Citizens were not far from that figure in support (according to the comments recieved via the EIS process). A smaller majority of Wyoming residents, but still a clear majority, were also in favor of wolf reintroduction.

The federal government did what the majority of the people wanted, that being wolf reintroduction. Further, even the comments received from the tri-state citizens were in favor. That, is not having wolves forced on you. The government was reacting to what the public wanted.

I now see people whining and complaining, you know what, I dont feel sorry for a one of you. I spent the time to comment on all 3 open comment periods, I attended several scoping meetings in several cities. Didnt hear too many people voicing strong opposition to wolf reintroduction. Like the public comments received a majority of what I heard was in support of reintroduction.

I bet 95%(or more) of the hunters in the tri-state area did not take the time to even write comments. Of all the people that I hunt with, only myself and one other took the time to go to meetings and make their comments heard.

In true fashion, the hunters nation-wide found more important things to do than comment on something that was going to effect them. There was no excuse for not being more pro-active in this issue, none...and frankly, we're getting what we deserve.

Only now, after its nipping some people in the a$$, are hunters showing some concern. You know what, too little too late.

The thing to do now is to start facing reality. Ron Gillett and his group of wackos is not going to help this issue at all. Wolves are here to stay and their petition is going to do nothing to elimate wolves.

I suggest every hunter write their congressional representatives asking them to put pressure on the state of Wyoming to come up with an acceptable wolf management plan. The EIS is very clear, without an acceptable plan from all three states, wolf delisting will not happen...ever...no matter how many wolves there are.

The ONLY shot we have to control wolves and start managing them is to get an acceptable plan in place, get them delisted and give control to the states.

Whining, crying about wolves being crammed down your throat, and signing petitions is a dead-end and a waste of time.
 
>around 90% of
>public comments from all citizens
>were in favor of wolf
>reintroduction. Idaho and Montana Citizens
>were not far from that
>figure in support (according to
>the comments recieved via the
>EIS process). A smaller majority
>of Wyoming residents, but still
>a clear majority, were also
>in favor of wolf reintroduction.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I know we tend to tout stats, but I'd like to see the source of those stats and how they were determined.



>The federal government did what the
>majority of the people wanted,
>that being wolf reintroduction.

No, the government did what the "vocal" majority wanted. Whether they represented the majority is questionable. That is the problem with surveys and stats. Look at the sample sizes and the demographics of those surveyed. You will be hard pressed to find a survey on anything that can be generalized to the whole population with any validity at all. I agree that it is apathy, and/or a lack of effort that leads to infringment on our desires--and worse, our rights.


>I now see people whining and
>complaining, you know what, I
>dont feel sorry for a
>one of you.

Don't think most of us want sympathy and you might consider that some of us did put forth some real effort in contacting the Game and Fish, our congressmen and governor, to make clear our views and concerns. I accept that as my license to whine and complain as you state it. You might consider that just because someone is unhappy and repeats an opinion on something that it isn't necessary whining. I've been complaining about general inflation and gas prices for years. Suppose I should shut up about those too?


>I bet 95%(or more) of the
>hunters in the tri-state area
>did not take the time
>to even write comments.
How would we determine that so one of us could collect on that bet? Unfortunately you may be right. I don't know and I expect the ranchers were far more responsible than the hunters on that mark.



>In true fashion, the hunters nation-wide
>found more important things to
>do than comment on something
>that was going to effect
>them. There was no excuse
>for not being more pro-active
>in this issue, none...and frankly,
>we're getting what we deserve.

I agree, with the exception of "what we deserve." We deserve our soveriegnty....but it is up to us to fight for and maintain it.



>I suggest every hunter write their
>congressional representatives asking them to
>put pressure on the state
>of Wyoming to come up
>with an acceptable wolf management
>plan.

Well now, that is typically how its done these days, isn't it. Get a bit of peer pressure and fold. Go ahead folks, give it a shot. lol BUT--maybe the solution isn't for Wyoming to tuck its tail and belly crawl off like a whipped dog. Maybe the solution is for the other states to get the balls to stand up for them selves. Wyoming has an acceptable wolf plan. It is biologically sound and meets the criteria that was determnined necessary for deenlistment. I wouldn't suggest that Idaho or Montana accomodate us. They came up with plans that meet their needs within their borders. However, maybe a few of you could get your sportsman's groups--particularly the national groups--more involved. Remember this isn't just about wolves. I don't know anyone personally who cares if there are a few wolves wandering around (though I haven't met anyone personally who wanted them brought back either). As long as we continue to allow federal policy dictate how manage our states, we surrender liberties.



>Whining, crying about wolves being crammed
>down your throat, and signing
>petitions is a dead-end and
>a waste of time.

I agree that petitions seem to have little value except to put issues on the ballot at the voting booth. Whining and crying are fine as long as we are seeking solutions. Buzz, I expect you and I probably agree far more on things than we disagree on. Many things there are no real ways to be sure how right we are or are not on. I try to approach things based on principles. That is probably what riles me up the most: There are some serious compromises in the whole reintro/management deal that strike me as clearly contrary to the principles of this nation. Roles of federal government, roles of the states, liberty, soverignty, etc...
 
"I don't know anyone personally who cares if there are a few wolves wandering around"

ME,,, although a lonely me in this department!! I agree with some of what you said and there are some things I don't. Either way I have to give you credit because at least you care enough to have your voice heard!! There are SO many people I hear WHINING and then do nothing.

"Maybe the solution is for the other states to get the balls to stand up for them selves. Wyoming has an acceptable wolf plan. It is biologically sound and meets the criteria that was determnined necessary for deenlistment."

I won't spend time talking about balls, however, I do feel that Montana and Idaho are moving forward and are working together to come up with solutions. Is it "better" than Wyoming? Depends on who you ask. As far as an "acceptable" wolf plan, I disagree, but that's just my opinion and unfortunately time is the only sure way to find out on this one. I feel that open season with no regulations outside of the GYA would in the future bring the wolves back onto the E.species list. Wyoming has met numbers, but I don't think it long lasting under the current proposal. Living here I feel this has MUCH more to do with anti-Government sentiments than biology.. Either way, thanks for the comments and stay involved, no matter how you feel about wolves!
Wideone
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-06 AT 06:05PM (MST)[p]mmwb,

I agree with a lot of your post.

However, that being said, you're wrong about the majority not wanting wolves. The wolf reintroduction was debated and open for public comment 3 times, hundreds of meetings, and was legal.

These agencies cant read minds...and they dont. I will tell you what they do read though, and thats the comments they receive via the EIS process. That was what the decisions were based on and a majority favored wolf reintroduction. Therefore, by people choosing not to comment, the agencies assume (maybe not correctly), that the rest either dont care, or are also in favor of their proposal. Kind of like people that dont like their president, laws, etc. but dont take the time to vote. Your choice of not voting for a candidate, means you either dont care or you're letting others make your decisions FOR you.

The other thing I disagree with you on is that Wyoming plan is acceptable. Thats just not true. The states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho agreed on the EIS and the current plan. The EIS specifies that delisting will only happen if their plans are acceptable to the USFWS.

Wyoming can propose anything it wants, but until they fulfill the requirement of the EIS (which is a legal and binding document), their proposal IS NOT acceptable.

Delisting and the states gaining management wont ever happen until the plan is acceptable to the USFWS. They can fight big-brother all they want...chasing their tails is all they're accomplishing.

Wyoming is slowing the de-listing process and keeping MT, ID, and themselves from beginning management and control of wolves.

In the meantime Wyoming and its hardball approach is increasing wolf numbers and keeping them on the list.
 
I have a whacky idea, how about a statewide vote in those states pre introduction to approve or disapprove? Relying on the voices heard at a few meetings is pretty cheap. Where's the vote? None? Oh, I guess that's because the outcome was pre-determined.

Citizens of WY, MT and ID will simply have to use disobedience to achieve their ends. There are only a very small handful of wolves with a colar on them the rest are basically untrackable moment to moment. They're severly alergic to lead and some other substances I hear.

There will be only deaf ears on the plight of hunters and ranchers, period. Some will write poems about wolves and others will turn them inside out with 06's, you chose.
 
How does the trapping season in a wolf area go does it have a ton of restriction,(footholds, snares, conibears) because 330 conibears work great in 30 gal barrels for coyotes, put the meat in the back of the barrel they stick their heads in and BOOM it slams down,and the neck snaps.
 
Well some of you put a good position forward, even if I disagree on some. Clearly there are somethings I may be somewhat ignorant on. Maybe you can educate me. I guess I just don't see that Wyoming's plan would lead to the wolves being relisted. Did the original requirements not state an expected population and number of packs both in the park and without the whole Yellowstone ecosystem? Does the whole ecosystem encompass all of all three states? The Wyoming plan supports the maintenance of the packs, within a geographical range outside of the park. That population will be monitored and controlled through allotment of necessary trophy tags. Outside of that geographical range, the wolves would be considered predatory animals and there would be no protection for them. This is the only plan so far that is likely to adequately keep such a prolific species from spreading far and wide.

I can understand that Idaho and Montana are frustrated with Wyoming on their stand. I question the federal hardball stand on not allowing them to manage regardless of whether they are allowing Wyoming to. From what I get from the Idaho media that I watch, they pretty much are.

Trapping would be the most effective method to keep the population under control. There are few--relative to most states--restrictions regarding snares and body grip traps in Wyoming. From what I know those who are trapping in Alaska and western Canada, seem to have the best success with snares, though as stated above, I have seen the effects of a 330 body gripper on a wolf. I would hesitate to set 330s on land, just for the risk of getting someones dog or some naive hunter messing with it and getting himself hurt.
 
You guys seem to think that wolf de-listing will just happen as soon as Wyoming gives in to the feds.What a joke!Montana and Idaho screwed up by capitulating to the feds.Now they have control!Another good one!!The wolves are decimating elk in the Clearwater area to the point that Idaho G&F wants to kill 43 wolves there.Now that they are in state control,go ahead,right?Wrong!The feds still control everything,only now Idaho and Montana pay for it.Just like when this whole fiasco started,the VAST majority of comments were post -card comments sent to bleeding heart liberal idiots who thought seeing a wolf would be cool;who in turn sent the post card to the USFWS.Those were all considered comments.As far as the Clearwater situation,43,000 comments were sent in from all 50 states and several foreign countries!!99% were opposed to Idaho killing 43 wolves(there would still have been 30 wolves left)to save this elk herd.Out of those,99% were post card comments generated by Defenders of Wildlife.Tell me-why should a Frenchman(much less someone from New York)have any say-so in what happens in Idaho????BUZZH-you are right about one thing-sportsmen only spaek out AFTER the fact.When we lose something,we get upset.What you are not mentioning is the organization these pro-wolf,anti-hunting groups have.The money they have.The battery of lawyers they have,actually working on the payroll for these outfits.EarthJustice filed a tax return of over $700 million last year.Does that tell you anything?Idaho_Oldtimer-you got this in perspective!!Yet no one paid attention to what you said.Delisting of wolves will not occurr when Wyoming gives in.The lawyers with their lawsuits are standing by.As soon as the "D" word is mentioned by USFWS,they will file an injunction.And this buys time.As they keep things tied up in the courts,the wolves will continue to decimate our game herds.And the feds will continue to pay in Wyo,while Idaho and Montana foot the bill with their hands still tied.There is s reason wolves were eliminated in the first place.There is a reason Canada said we were crazy for wanting them introduced.No one listened then,and now we are seeing that reasoning.Even after delisting,not one of us will be hunting a wolf for literally YEARS.MARK MY WORDS.Later,N.T.
 
I don't want to sound pessimistic but I've seen how the enviros work (in my former life I worked on ES issues for 20 years). They never want to see anything delisted, no matter how many there are, or how healthy the population or habitat, it will never be good enough. The lawsuits will be filed and refiled again. I'm 60 years old and I will never see the wolf delisted.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
Here's the latest news for all you wolf lovers. Hope you can run.

Article Last Updated: 4/04/2006 01:19 AM Challis, Idaho, man says he was stalked by two wolves The Associated Press

Salt Lake Tribune CHALLIS, Idaho - A Challis man out searching for shed antlers said two black wolves stalked him, tried to get behind him, and bared their teeth at him before he was able to retreat to his vehicle. ''They had full intentions of coming in to get me,'' Daniel Woodbridge told the Idaho State Journal about Wednesday's encounter. ''They were just waiting for the right time.'' It's the second time in two weeks that a person looking for shed antlers in central Idaho has reported being stalked by wolves. Jason Husseman, a biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, investigated Wednesday's incident with a wildlife officer. Husseman said the two wolves were part of the Morgan Creek Pack, made up of at least 13 black wolves. He said the pack could be digging dens in the area. Woodbridge said he was looking for antlers in the sagebrush outside Challis near Darling Creek. Deer and elk antlers shed during winter are collected by entrepreneurs for use in dietary and medicinal supplements and decorative furniture. Woodbridge said he had encountered wolves during the winter and never had a problem, so he wasn't alarmed when he saw two black wolves about 100 yards away. Hiking alone and unarmed, Woodbridge said he stood so the wolves could see he was a human, and then tried to get upwind so they could smell him. ''But my scent didn't scare them at all,'' he said. He said when the wolves caught his scent they came forward. Woodbridge said that when they got about 30 yards away he charged toward them, yelling and throwing rocks. He said the larger of the two wolves bared its teeth and howled, and the second tried to circle behind him. The wolves stayed about 20 yards away, Woodbridge said, as he retreated toward his truck. Then he went over a ridge where the wolves couldn't see him. ''As soon as I got out of sight I ran for everything I was worth,'' he said. Woodbridge said that the larger of the two wolves started chasing him when it saw Woodbridge running, and the other wolf tried to get ahead of him in a gully. ''When he saw the truck he slowed down,'' he said. ''He'd look at me and then at the truck like he didn't understand.'' On Thursday, Husseman and wildlife officer Merrit Horsman went to the area and howled, causing the wolves to move toward them. ''They were acting like they did not want us in the area,'' he said. ''So we did a little hazing, walked toward them and ran them out of there.'' He said dens in the area could have caused the wolves' behavior toward Woodbridge. Husseman said he's seen similar behavior while counting pups. ''Basically, they'll just escort you out of the area,'' Husseman said.
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling by Judge Alan Johnson rejecting Wyoming's wolf plan yesterday.Bummer.Wyo may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court."It's certainly not the end of the battle."Says Park Cty Atty Bryan Skoric.I hate to agree with you,Kilbuc,but you are probably right.If you do live to see delisting,conditions will still include no hunting!Later,N.T.
 
RE: Idahoans Sign Wolf Petition Sportsman's warehouse

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-06 AT 10:45PM (MST)[p]For sign ups in Idaho falls area ski's ,Ross's gun, Roger Ball development. Oh by the way the Idaho Falls Sportsman's warehouse store earlier this week capitulated to pro wolf advocates and some Flyfishing Federation of America. After allowing John Cranney and Gordon petersen access to their store to obtain signees. These two nonhunting groups (JACKSON HOLE AND Part time sun valley residents I.e the Orvis L.L. bean crowd to infringe on the political process, and asked the coalition to Leave store, they asked if could use part of parking lot same scenario. In doing so they catered to a special interest group and I would like to know why?? Why is their $$$ more important than the hound hunters, elk,deer, ect joe blow outdoorsman???? This is a political statement by this paticular stores managment like it or not. First hand account Gordon Petersen 208-356-9630. If they don't agree with petition they have opp to voice that in november ballot, Every sports group should be treated fairly. Let them know you would like to know if they support their own brand the sportsman's warehouse??

Shane
 
RE: Idahoans Sign Wolf Petition Sportsman's warehouse

Is the official position of Sportsman's Warehouse pro-wolf?If so,I will boycott,as will our local chapter of SFW.We buy a lot of our banquet stuff from them.Later,N.T.
 
RE: Idahoans Sign Wolf Petition Sportsman's warehouse

We must do everything we can to support IAWC. Get everyone you can find to sign. You can access their website at http://www.idahoanti-wolfcoalition.org/ . It will hep you find where to sign. While you are there click on "pictures" , follow the links and see what wolves are doing to our elk herds, and also a couple of pics of pitiful few people signing. If you don't live in Idaho, send the IAWC a donation and give them your support. It's like this folks, if we don't all hang together in this we will most assuredly all hang separately. Let's get everyone we know to sign on this or you and I will not be hunting any big game within a few years, regardless of where you want to hunt in the western US. But hurry because the deadline is fast approaching. By the way, a Challis ID man was harrassed and stalked by two wolves this past week while out shed hunting here in Idaho, near Challis. The wolves came to within 40 yards of him and were very aggressive. He was unarmed and was finally able to get to his vehicle after giving the wolves the slip temporarily, though they followed him to his car. Sound like fun?
 

Similar threads

Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
10
Views
586
SS!
SS!

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

elk3.jpg
555F3CEF-F6F7-4E65-A8BD-E605A9D3E17A.jpeg
EB0E84D9-5D67-4C9B-A822-139D669FC708.jpeg
A1BC2BDF-6B65-49CE-9B22-DFF96F669DE7.jpeg
20190204_125833.jpg
79925EEE-1A61-43B2-8BF3-B189EC9DFB78.jpeg
13A9DBD1-9984-491B-AF57-5B5DB66E0E2A.jpeg
1705510423662.png
IMG_1896.jpeg
IMG_5393.jpg
Screenshot_20231104_201816_Gallery.jpg
P2290002.JPG
Back
Top Bottom