Wolf Management Ideas

bigbrink

Active Member
Messages
105
Now that we know how everyone feels about the wolves and know what they are doing, lets hear some management ideas that you think would work in creating an equilibrium between the wolves and other game animals.

Brad/bigbrink
 
Trap a quota of them each year and send them to central park in new york and to Kalifornia. :)
ismith
 
Get WY to come up with an acceptable plan, delist them.

Give control to the states and impose a quota system to keep wolf numbers at the minimum required to keep them off the list.

Hunting and trapping is the answer.

The funny part is, though, all the whiners that hate predators...they wont be killing any wolves. If they think elk hunting is difficult...theres no way they'd ever kill a wolf.

I also find it funny that a majority of the wolf haters dont kill a lion and/or a black bear every year to help keep predators in check????
 
Great idea...but long before that happened...they'd be relisted and afforded full federal protection.

I think its time for people to wise up and accept the reality that wolves are here for good.

Getting control in the States hands should be priority #1 followed by proper management.

Lots of tough talkers, but apparently 99.9999% are just wind-bags as wolf numbers continue to increase....
 
"The funny part is, though, all the whiners that hate predators...they wont be killing any wolves. If they think elk hunting is difficult...theres no way they'd ever kill a wolf."

Which is exactly why we will have zero chance of trying to Manage these Wolves by sport hunting should that ever happen.

Let's look at Idaho. Right now Idaho is roughly 600 Wolves over objective. To remove 600 Wolves you would have to offer 3000 tags and the Defenders of Wildlife(USFWS) will never go for that.

Wyoming is not holding up delisting. They are the only state who has a management plan I agree with and so do many others.

Ok Let's say your right and Wyoming says they will classify all Wolves outside the park as Big Game animals and not Predators to be shot on site like Coyotes, Great.
Now we sit back and watch as dozens of lawsuits come filing into the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals( The Liberals favoite venue)

Their will be one case after another after another and it will be tied up in court for years to come. Wolves will not be managed by the states.
Good, fact filled, science based management has given way to the feel good opinions of Liberal Judges.
Their rulings are based on their beliefs and feelings and have nothing to do with Biological fact or Science.
They sold us a bill of goods we didn't want now it's time for them to do what they agreed upon.

What would I like to see done? First I'd like to see the ESA changed and completely rewritten. But I'd settle for:

Picking out the 20 packs they want to keep in Idaho and kill the rest of them That will allow well over 100 Wolves and at least 15 breeding pairs.
Do the same for Wyoming and Montana.
 
I hope the states do take control then I can hunt wolfs in the lower 48 I would have no problem paying for a non resident tag the last time we hunted in wyoming (sunlight basin)we saw two different packs,and then wonder why there were no deer.
 
"Kill them all!!"

Kill 'em all, Kill everything,, heck, lets just drop an -H- bomb on these s.o.b.'s!!!
In the words of Napolian Dynamite, Yeeeeessssssssssssss
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-06 AT 09:13PM (MST)[p]I hate the wolves I truley do but the truth is that wolves really are here and getting rid of them is going to be tough. I agree with giving states more power, right now the government has total control over something they have no idea about. The only people that have a clue are those who are in direct contact/conflict with them. We need more power in the states in order to ever go forward. After the power is granted to the states then a well planned management system can be established.

My plan would be if they leave the park they are like a coyote and can be shot on site. As long as they stay in the park they are fine as long as the population stays at a balanced level. The level we have now is out of control.

Bigbrink

A bomb would be nice too!!
 
Bigbrink,

What you're stating is pretty much Wyomings plan, except the wolves would also be afforded full protection as a big-game animal in (some) Wilderness areas as well as Yellowstone.

Outside Yellowstone, they'd be considered predators and could be shot on sight.

Thats the rub with the USFWS.

Under those guidelines, the USFWS was reluctant to accept that plan as they felt that wolf populations would not remain high enough to keep them off the list.

On top of that, the recovery area in the EIS identified many areas OUTSIDE Yellowstone and Wilderness areas on BLM and FS lands.

My opinion, wolves should be classified as big-game or fur-bearing animals in the entire tri-state region. Each state could then set up appropriate trapping or hunting seasons. All the USFWS could legally require then is the population to stay high enough to keep them above the recovery numbers as stated in the EIS. As long as the States kept the wolf numbers above the minimum, the Feds couldnt re-list...they'd just have to make darn sure they kept wolf numbers at the acceptable levels.

Make no mistake, wolves are NOT that hard to control in the lower 48...didnt take long to reduce their numbers the first time.
 
Wyoming needs to come up with a better plan than the current one so the damn things can get off the list. My proposal is limit licenses wihin (limited draw) a perimeter around the park to mantain near federal population objectives. Outside of that area give everbody who is a resident a $5 guaranteed tag. Non-residents may only apply for the limited tags. This way you satisfy Uncle by maintaining minimums, you give the Non-Residents a shot at a once in a lifetime hunt. You satisfy the locals by basically a shoot on sight ruling. You make money for the state to manage them, wont be much needed once the program is in place, (some simple ariel monitoring in the winter along with your big game counts within the perimeter area to get close to your objective and fudge the numbers for the rest of population in the rest of the state) You improve hunter land owner relationships because if a rancher has a problem wolf pack he calls in some of the crackshot locals, they do a good job and he lets them hunt monster mule deer on his property. SEE HOW SIMPLE THAT IS.
Sheeper "for president"
hunterrunningfrombearlgclr5ju.gif
 
I also agree with giving out licenses and having a hunting and trapping season on them. The numbers are high enough and they reproduce fast enough that once delisted and hunted their numbers will level off and become stable. As of right now they are not scared of humans at all, they just stand there and look at you like your friends or something. Once they can he hunted they will become weary of humans and seldom seen and their numbers will become stable.
 
I would buy that one sheepeater!! good plan!!


Work to hunt!! Live to hunt!! And the rest spent keeping the wife happy!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-06 AT 11:53PM (MST)[p]THEY WILL NEVER BE DELISTED BUZZZ..........NEVER, EVER.....We will all be dead and gone and they will still be listed. Anyone that believes otherwise is living a pipe dream.

Kill them all. Distemper and parvo might help.

I don't understand why we have canadian wolves on the endangered species list in the first place since they are not endangered.

JB



"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
--Benjamin Franklin 1759
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-06 AT 10:20AM (MST)[p]Sheeper,

Your idea is way too logical. That's why it won't work. Besides, weren't the wolves put here to force hunting and the 2nd amendment out??? I love that excuse from some folks here. I think the conflict between two extremes will slow the process. Not enough logical ideas like yours. Too many people from New York, California, Connecticut trying to call the shots. I really love their input too.
 
the closest thing i can see to a wolf hunt would be a limited draw. Thus the states make $ and only a very limited amount of wolves would be killed.
 
My vote goes for total removal. Now before all the realists throw up their hands and shriek "That will never happen!" (which is proabably true) please keep in mind that there are many groups pushing for full protection. So, if there is any validity to the pluralists' view of policy formation then total removal is a valid position. In other words, once this option is taken off the table sportmen have lost ground. I'm not ready to concede.

"But this position will only polarize the public and delay management!!"

Probably, but tell that to the Defenders of Wildlife. The public is already polarized and probably always will be. I would love to be able to buy a wolf tag. Maybe someday I'll be able to. My guess is that it will be in Wyoming.
 
After alleged delisting, have a season on them with liberal limits with monitoring to ensure the population stays at or above recovery level. Soon the wolves would learn their place and depredations would become minimal. Encounters would be uncommon and I think the sportsmen would be happy.
 
Since Utah "doesnt have any Wolves" can we shoot them and pretend it was a dog chasing game??? Or a state record coyote??
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-06 AT 10:08PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-06 AT 09:58?PM (MST)

bring out the helicopters and kill every last one in the lower 48 and they are still not endangered.
canada and alaska have more than what is needed
we dont have any muskox here should we intoduce them.
this is a man made problem they should have never started and it should be terminated.
how about the wolf lovers being exported to where there are some that would be easyer.
we use to have smallpox and anthrax talk to ben laden he could fix us right up. it use to be here and it kept the humens in check not to many old or young one.same mentality, its a living part of the eco-system.we would need less roads and buildings the people left could tear out all the left over buildings and that would give the government some other place to waist money.
here in wyoming if they step out of the park and no other
wilderness aeras they should be hunted down with helicopters and poison traps F the feds if they wont to go to war lets do it.I'll be your huckel barry.
I know buzz no spelling or puncuation i aint got time for that get my point.

i was agenced it from the start and will remain there. regardless of anyones oppinion study or government mandate.
we the people of wyoming gave them our plan and its there job to respect the will of the many not the few. majoraty rules.
our state should have its wishes respected. and other states should have theirs if a state has a majoraty of its people who wont wolves they can have all of ours. if buss likes them that much he could move with them.getting to be to many folks here in wyoming anyway.
 
cmiddleton,

Some friendly advice:

Lay off the alcohol when you post.

Its plenty obvious you dont know much about the wolf reintroduction or the process that got them here...or the process that has to happen to get them off the list.

For starters, you can call me a wolf-lover all you want. You're just flat-a$$ed wrong about that though. I guess if you mean, I'd love to shoot one legally in the lower 48, then you're correct.

Whining about the wolves now is a moot point. There here, they're staying. No more discussion is needed on that.

The process that got them here was legal. The ESA and NEPA were both followed to the letter. There were 3 open comment periods on the draft EIS/and final EIS. A vast majority of the comments received from ALL states including Wyoming were in favor of reintroducing wolves. A majority did not hold your supremecist attitude that they didnt belong here...so the majority got their way (at the least the majority that took time to write or testify at the several hundred meetings held throughout the UNITED STATES). You should be happy about that, if I'm reading your rant correctly about "majority rules".

Once the states of WY, ID, and MT agreed to the EIS they're legally bound to follow it, simple as that.

Wyomings plan is NOT acceptable as per the language in the EIS. The EIS is very, very, very clear in what demands must be met by the states involved for delisting to happen. The major one is the USFWS approved management plans from each state that ensure wolf populations will be adequately protected from relisting. In other words, the minimum required for delisting (which has been met for better than 2 years now).

I have no problem with gunning them from helicopters as long as the minimum numbers are maintained and the EIS is adhered to.

The states havent had anything shoved down their throats, and thats a fact. They had ample opportunity to comment and contribute to this thing from day one. They know the rules they agreed to and they know how to come up with an acceptable plan.

Until WY pulls its head out...wolf numbers will do nothing but expand and maintain their current status of FULL FEDERAL PROTECTION.

Oh, and by the way, I wont be leaving Wyoming anytime soon...but you're free to hit the highway any time you like.
 
haven't touched a drop in over 15 yrs.
its about a states right to govern its self without the feds telling us what to do the feds should contol the military, and fourin affairs and the staTES SHOULD GOVERN THEMSELVES.
wolves are a extention of federal control over states rights to make there own plan and stick to it.
i don't wont to have to try to control wolves as i do coyotes
i spend more money controlling coyotes than you make.
 
when the esa was inacted i dont think wolf reinterductin was its intent. if it was it should be scraped. usfws is moving wolves outside the area it was intended to be.
we have 80 calves on the ground and are 3/4 the way threw calving, and when we are done lambing we will have over 400 lambs. a wolf steps on privete land its fair game.esa or not
we have had years with coyotes doing majer damage to our property and dont need the wolf to make it worse.
you should lay off the booze,weed,crank,and acid you are looking threw rose colered glasses.i dont think any hunter shooting a wolf is worth one calfs life even if the feds pay for it if they cant find a way to wiggle out of it.
been in this state longer than you and so has my fore fathers.
its all these transplants that are damaging our ranching way of life. look at the price of property now days. rich conglomerations have driven the price so high you can barly pay the taxes on land with what you can raise on it.
if we didn't have our famaly company to help pay the bills of the ranch i don't know if we could keep it going.
at the prices of land todayits easier to sell out and be rich.
many long time ranchers are doing just that
so tell me what land you hold and put them pesky varmits there
preservaion of the wyoming ranching life stile it hanging in the balance.
 
>The states havent had anything shoved
>down their throats, and thats
>a fact.

?????!!What!!?????

I appreciate your opinions and your views. But, your credibility is suspect when you make statements like this. I can't speak to Montana or Wyoming. In Idaho, the state fish and game adamantly opposed wolf reintroduction. In fact, the State of Idaho flatly refused to cooperate with the feds. The thinking was that if the state wouldn't assist with the introduction then the feds wouldn't have enough local resources to make it happen. Dissenters in the Dept. claimed that the wolves were coming with or without state involvement. They were right. This is how the Nez Perce Tribe became involved. The Nez Perce Tribe was happy to help! This is how The State of Idaho had Canadian Wolf introduction "shoved down its throat."
 
we gave them wyomings plan take it or get the wolves out i support wyomings plan to the end. if they step on privete land they are a predator.
 
pre64,

Those arent my opinions, they're the facts as they currently stand.

You're just wrong about wolves being shoved down our throats. There were several HUNDRED scoping meetings, 3 open commment periods, many other meetings between all interested parties.

Thats how NEPA and the EIS process works. There were several options available under the EIS, including an option of NOT reintroducing wolves at all. THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED WERE IN FAVOR OF REINTRODUCTION from every state including WY, ID, and MT as well as nation wide.

What part of that is so difficult to understand? If you dont understand the process, thats YOUR fault.

The feds cant read peoples minds, they read the comments they receive to guide management on issues like that. Thats why the preferred alternative was reintroduction. If people were really concerned about the reintroduction, they should have attended the meetings, gotten involved and submitted written comments on their prefered alternative. Apparently, the anti-wolf crowd must have been playing rip-van winkle for a few years. Their lack of commitment and concerned got them rolled...big time. Thats nobodys fault but the fault of the complacency shown by the anti-wolf crowd.

cmiddleton,

Where to begin with your "logic"...for starters the world doesnt revolve around your choice of professions. If you want to start another thread about the taxpayer rip-off known as welfare ranching...by all means...I'll school you on that. I suggest you not bite the hand that pays your bills (assuming you lease federal or state lands for your livestock).

As for Federal VS. State control...well, I suggest 7th grade civics courses offered at the nearest grade school. ENDANGERED species are to be controlled by the Federal government, and supercedes State law for so many good reasons it would take 5 pages to write.

Argue all you want, but several things are indisputable:

1. Wolf reintroduction was legal under the laws of the U.S.

2. States were given more than ample opportunity to fight, comment, etc. BEFORE wolves were ever reintroduced.

3. A vast majority of comments were in favor from the people living in the tri-state areas as well as nationwide.

4. Wolves are here, they arent going to be eliminated.

5. WY is holding up delisting and the entire legal process they agreed to. As long as they continue to hold up the process, wolf populations will continue to expand and remain in control of the Federal Government.

Case closed.
 
I take back what I wrote. I do not appreciate your opinions or views. I don't dispute your facts, I disagree with the opinions you derive from them. Mr. Middleton's opinions are not lessened by his typing skills. I would argue that his opinion is quite valid, particularly since he is in a position to be financilly impacted by future wolf policy.

The hostility in your posts indicates that you are unable to distingish between the "facts" as you percieve them and your opinions. Comments like "lay off the alcohol" and "I suggest a 7th grade civics course" decry your input. Its hard to take you seriously. This is unfortunate as it appears you are well informed.

Inronically, I agree with most of your points! Still, everything in my previous post is factually correct. My opinion, derived from these facts, is that the State of Idaho was bullied into wolf introduction. Your opinion is different. Fine. I respect your conclusion. I don't agree, but I understand your reasoning. Same with your views on ushering Wyoming's management plan. I understand your reasoning; I respect your conclusion. Mine is different, and for good reason.

I would argue that the differences in our opinions are based on differences in what we consider the relevant aspects of the topic. For example, I don't give much weight to scheduled public meetings as they are too easy to polticize. Moreover, scores of books have been written regarding the relative factors in terms of public policy formation. Most come to different conlusions. The intolerance in your posts gives the impression that you think your interpretation of this case is the only valid one. This smacks of arrogance. I dearly hope you take this as constructive criticism as if this is your common method of expression I fear you will not be taken seriously. That would be too bad as overall your public input (if the CONTENT of your posts reflects your input) is positive for all sportsmen, myself included. I'm done with this.
 
Pre64,

You're still missing the point.

States rights do not supercede federal laws and regulations, thats a fact. The ESA, NEPA, and EIS processes have been upheld in numerous court cases. Trying to argue for state control based on states rights isnt going to get you, me, or the state of WY anywhere.

The whining that you and middleton are doing about wolves being shoved down your throat and states rights is just a waste of everyone's time...including your own.

I've given you the information necessary to get management into State hands and why its not happening. Wyoming was recently rolled in a court case on this very issue. Until WY gets an acceptable plan, we're done with this issue, legally.

Like I said, I want the same thing everyone else does control levels at the minimum required to keep them off the ESA.

Sorry, but I dont take my views as intolerant or arrogant. Its just the view of the reality of what we're forced to deal with and the only way we'll ever get wolf management in the hands of the states.

I havent heard ONE logical idea of how to get them off the list or under state control...and I'll tell you and everyone else...there is ONLY one way.

Until WY wakes up, drops the pride and comes up with a viable management plan...we're all toast.

Thats really all there is to it.
 
We're all toast now dipshit, some of us are just too stupid to see it. There are no states rights left. The federal government does whatever it wants, when it wants and again i say THEY WILL NEVER BE DELISTED !!!!

JB

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
--Benjamin Franklin 1759
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-06 AT 06:21AM (MST)[p]finalley d13er see's the problem.
its not the states plan that i don't like its the fed not accepting it.
they wont accept the fact that the wolves are only to be in yellowstone and serrounding wilderness. not leo and not sundance.the only way to keep them there is to kill the ones that leave. and hunting seasons will not do that.
are the feds thinking that none of the wolves will stay in there are they all going to get shot because we dont let them live on privete land?
look at how much blm is in crook county slim to none we don't have any forest service leases we do lease other privete land so the feds are not even in the picture in our opperation.
wolves are not now or ever have they been endangered
just because they didn't live in the lower 48 wolves don't even know where the borders are.they still thrived in north amarica
 
remember you guys asked my oppinion i didn't ask yours if you wont a different oppinion ask peta
wolf lovers are like santa clause and the easter bunny everyone knows about them but nobody ever met one.at least not in my neck of the woods maybe they should have had the meetings in sundance where there are real people not the phony jacksonites.
ask any conservative right wing republican they will agree the usdfws is in the pockit of left wing liberals peta,alf,and other terrorest groups.
wolves are the way to stop hunting and that has been the plan all along then guns are next back them down now or do your hunting east of the mississippi wolves will destroy everything else.
and those of you who dont like ranching stop eating then we wont need farmers and ranchers. we could all change our diet to computer chips.
 
Mmmmmmm, computer chiiiiips..

Hey, maybe they could have someone rite out the manageemant plan form sundance. I agre
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom