Judge doubts wolf split

[swampmule]

A federal judge in Montana expressed skepticism Tuesday that the Endangered Species Act allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protection of wolves in Montana and Idaho but not in Wyoming.

In a hearing for a suit brought by conservation groups against the federal wildlife agency, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy told Justice Department attorney Mike Eitel he was having trouble accepting the government's bifurcation of protection rules. Under federal actions, Wyoming wolves are separated from the rest of their ?distinct population segment? in the northern Rockies, Molloy said in his Missoula courtroom.

?I understand the practical argument,? Molloy said. ?I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don't understand is the legal argument. That's not very clear.?

Fish and Wildlife?s decision to remove federal protection from a portion of the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population violates the Endangered Species Act, conservation groups argued. Lawyers from Earthjustice said that delisting part of the population is grounds for putting all wolves in the northern Rockies back on the threatened and endangered species list. The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance is among the groups represented by Earthjustice.

In 2009, Fish and Wildlife removed a portion of the Rocky Mountain gray wolf

Act protection in Montana and Idaho. However, because of inadequate state protections for wolves, the agency chose to continue federal protection for gray wolves in Wyoming.

If Molloy rules in favor of Fish and Wildlife?s decision to partially delist the gray wolf population, it could set a precedent for future delistings, allowing the federal government to arbitrarily pick and choose which animals are protected and where, Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold said after the hearing.

?If the Fish and Wildlife Service can get away with this, the scope of the Endangered Species Act is radically restricted,? Honnold said.

A ruling in favor of conservation groups, however, might put additional pressure on Wyoming to come up with a wolf management plan that will pass muster with Fish and Wildlife. So far, Wyoming?s plans, which have sought to minimize the number of wolves with no protection at all in most of the state, have not met federal standards.

State management plans in Idaho and Montana also are problematic, conservation lawyers said. The plaintiffs fear that the wolf management plans in Montana and Idaho do not adequately protect the delisted wolves, though both states assured the judge that their states? laws and regulations require them to manage viable wolf populations. Wolf hunts were held in both states last year. Seventy-three wolves were killed in Montana, and 185 were killed in Idaho.

The conservation groups also argued the size of the gray wolf population is not large enough to allow for sustainable population growth, claiming that in order for the species to maintain genetic diversity, the population must reach at least 2,000 animals. Federal guidelines require 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in each state.

There are about 1,700 gray wolves in the Rocky Mountain region, including at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming.

?By every biological measure, the region?s gray wolf population is fully recovered,? an April U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report said. Conservation groups disagree.

?We hope the wolves in Idaho and Montana will be returned to the endangered species list, the recovery plan for the northern Rocky Mountain wolves is re-examined and a new recovery plan that ensures the recovery of wolves over the long term is created,? said Natural Resources Defense Council representative Matt Skoglund.

Federal lawyers argued that because a significant portion of the Rocky Mountain gray wolf population inhabits Wyoming, the partial delisting is justified. Without federal protection, the killing of gray wolves would be legal throughout most of the state.

The Wyoming wolf management plan designates nearly 90 percent of the state a ?predator zone? in which gray wolves can be shot on sight without a license anytime of the year.

The population is one of the most well-studied and best-understood in the world, and the conclusion 15 years after reintroduction is that wolves will be continue to survive under state management, Eitel told Molloy.

Others, including Bob Wharff, executive director of the Wyoming chapter of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, argue that individual states should be given the responsibility of managing wildlife within their borders. Wharff, however, does not believe this will be the outcome of this lawsuit.

?It's a tragedy that Idaho and Montana will lose the opportunity to manage the wildlife as they see fit,? he said. ?But in part, it's their fault for being so critical of Wyoming?s management plan. As a whole, we all lose when we have a species listed when that listing isn't warranted.?

A similar lawsuit is under way in Wyoming. Arguments were heard by U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson in federal court in Cheyenne on Jan. 29 to address the state of Wyoming?s request that Fish and Wildlife accept the state?s management plan. A decision from Johnson is pending.

 

[BigFin]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-16-10 AT 05:10PM (MST)[p]Swampmule - Do you have a link to the article you quoted?

Wharff must be smoking crack to have said this quote below.

Others, including Bob Wharff, executive director of the Wyoming chapter of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, argue that individual states should be given the responsibility of managing wildlife within their borders. Wharff, however, does not believe this will be the outcome of this lawsuit.

?It's a tragedy that Idaho and Montana will lose the opportunity to manage the wildlife as they see fit,? he said. ?But in part, it's their fault for being so critical of Wyoming?s management plan. As a whole, we all lose when we have a species listed when that listing isn't warranted.?



Does he really think that MT and ID are part to blame for being critical of the Wyoming plan?

That guy needs his head examined.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[swampmule]

Sorry for taken so long to get back with you Bigfin.
Try this hope it workes.
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=6105

 

[SMOKESTICK]

BigFin,

Yes, I really do think, in part Idaho & Montana should share some of the blame if they are re-listed because Wyoming's plan was rejected.

If you knew of the pressures brought to bare on Wyoming to capitulate their responsibilities to their citizen's in order to gain favor with the feds you too would understand my statement. All they (Idaho & Montana) had to do was publicly state that Wyoming should be allowed to manage wolves however they saw fit, so long as it didn't jeopardize recovery efforts and was able to maintain at the least, a minimum viable population. Wyoming's plan is both biologically and scientifically sound. The Department of Justice refused to defend it as it was not "politically correct". Everything in our plan was approved by Ed Bangs and he stated that it could all be defended. Only problem was the federal attorney's which refused to uphold their obligation to put forth an effort to defend the laws of this land.

Wyoming's plan which was (written &) approved by the US Fish & Wildlife Service should have been approved. Had all three states stood united it might have made the difference. Idaho, Montana, and the feds all isolated Wyoming in an attempt to force us to cede our Constitutional rights, guaranteed under the 10th amendment.

Does anyone else happen to see any similarities between the gulf oil spill and/or the state of Arizona fighting to secure its borders? Both of these situations have similar tracks with the federal governments efforts to force wolves throughout the entire Rocky Mountain States. While to World stage is focused on the tragedy which is the gulf oil spill and talking about the fisheries being destroyed by an accident at sea and Arizona is being vilified via the media, the Rocky Mountains States are also under assault! Just as the fishing industry is being destroyed along the gulf coast our hunting industry is being savaged by an introduced predator by our own caring government.

Just as Wyoming has been isolated over our desires to manage wolves while fulfilling our obligations to recover a species we didn't ask for, Arizona is being forced to address illegal immigration independent of other states. There is a reason for the Constitution being written the way it was. The balance between state and federal government must be restored if we are to maintain the America I believe sportsmen desire. Wyoming never spoke against the Idaho or Montana wolf management plans; yet, neither state saw the need to stand united.

Yes, the reporter did the best to capture everything I shared with her. That being said, I never would wish anything ill on either Idaho or Montana. I only pointed out that we would have been much strong as a united front with each state being allowed to manage the wolves within their borders as they saw fit, so long as wolves were able to meet recovery goals and were able to maintain at the least, a minimum viable population.

 

[BuzzH]

BigFin,

As you can clearly see...you are 100% right about Bob Wharff.

This coming from the same clown that thought it was a good idea to get transferable landowner tags in Wyoming...and also outfitters sponsored tags...real piece of work.

MT and ID have NOTHING to do with Wyomings misguided grudge match with the Feds. What each state will do is suffer because of the idiotic stance on dual classification.

MT and ID have a proven record that wolf management not only can happen, but that hunting can control wolf numbers at desired levels.

Now, thanks to Wyomings attempt to supercede federal law, MT and ID will be back to square one...where Wyoming has been the last few years.

Even more ridiculous is that all WY needs to do is classify wolves as a big-game animal statewide to get an approved plan passed. Once approved, there is NOTHING in State or Federal law from having a 365 day season in 90% of the state...providing minimum wolf numbers are maintained.

Instead of using logic, Wyoming has chosen the stupid red-neck route...and the Piper is being paid. The ESA cannot be ignored, the EIS cannot be ignored...and thats a fact.

Bob, quit drinking Don Peays kool-aid and kissing his fat-a$$. Do what the average hunters in Wyoming have been asking for all along, getting the wolves off the list and into state control. Make your point, but dont make the hunters and wildlife in Wyoming suffer because of it. We get it...now get our point and lets get an acceptable plan in place, get control into state hands, get a wolf season, and most importantly start managing wolves.

 

[BigFin]

Smokestick - From that, I infer that you are Bob Wharff, the person I refer to in the article, and that you represent SFW. Thanks for your reply.

I would stongly disagree that Montana and Idaho had any influence on your plan in Wyoming. Having sat in on the MT plan since the beginning and served many years on a similar process with the Grizzly Bear Plan, it was no big surprise how this process works. One of the big worries all along was that the recovery document tied all three states at the hip.

For you to state, and then again admit here, that you think Montana and Idaho are to blame for this problem, as a result of not following the Wyoming position, is ridiculous. Not just ridiculous, but arrogant, and to most Montanans, offensive.

Let me see if I understand your logic - You find it OK to blame MT and ID for the plight of Wyoming. That implies we were supposed to fold our tent and follow your lead, regardless of what our citizens wanted.

We submitted plans that were adopted by our own citizens, from committees comprised of our citizens. We did not tell Wyoming how to do their plan.

You chose to go at it from your own direction. Fine. You exercised your state rights, now live with the consequences - don't blame others for it.

So the three states were supposed to have a united front - your term. Two states actually crafted wildlife management plans and one state crafted a plan that was on the fast track for re-listing.

What were we supposed to unite behind, the WY approach or the MT/ID approach? You imply that the Wyoming plan has all the answers and anyone who did not unite behind you is to blame. Seems pretty accusatory and self-righteous to me.

You don't hear any MT representatives stating that it is Wyoming's fault. Wyoming knew the risk they were taking with the plan you adopted. Now that it appears you might have spoiled your own soup, you now claim it is the fault of MT and ID.

I don't really care if Wyoming wants to kill every wolf in its borders. I do care, about the fact that without the Wyoming plan being accepted, the current situation makes it very unlikely that MT and ID are going to get control of wolves.

I agree that is an infringement on state rights. But, all states signed on to the introduction agreement and the process we are now going through for delisting. And, as states belonging to the Union, we are subject to the ESA and the court system that makes decisions such as this.

We can complain about all the other things you mention. It does no good, and is not relevant to the wolf discussion.

Wyoming is not bearing quite the burden of wolves that MT and ID are, in that you have fewer wolves than MT or ID. A large number of your wolves are within the boundaries of YNP, so they would be off limits to hunting, anyhow. So, you have less at stake by taking the position you have.

In other words, you are writing checks that are being cashed with other people's funds. Not much we can do about that.

I would suggest that Wyoming continue to do what you want to do with your wolf plan. It is your plan and your state. Go ahead and do with it what you want.

Just expect heated replies to your ignorant comments. And if the court outcome leaves you/WY on an island, don't expect those of us who have been bearing a disproportionate share of the costs created by your decisions, to throw you a rope.

Montana and Idaho plans reflect the reality that we are at a point where we have to deal with wolves - that we must treat them like a game animal, as we do mountain lions.

We want to develop a constituency vested in hunting wolves. This is the same arguments that occurred when mountain lions were reclassified as a big game animal in the 1970s. Now we have fanatic lion hunters in Montana and through proper management, lions co-exist and contribute to our hunting opportunities in Montana.

If you have a problem with the Montana and Idaho plans, it is a free country and you are entitled to your opinion, so continue to say what is on your mind.

But, under the same premise, expect those of us who have spent hundreds of hours working on things in MT to inform you of your ignorance of our hunting and wildlife heritage that is reflected in our wolf plan. Don't expect us to listen to your blame game without telling you how it is from our side of the border.

Since opinions are being exchanged, here is more opinion - some day the states will get control of wolves. Not a fact of if, but when. Hopefully someone will see the injustice of tying MT and ID to the fate of Wyoming and will give us control of wolves soon, regardless of the Wyoming plan.

When the states do get control, what is SFW going to do then? The Little Red Riding Hood stories are pretty hollow to anyone who understands much about wildlife management. Is SFW going to manufacture the next crisis to keep membership in tact and the funds flowing?

Fact is, SFW is the Johnny Come Lately to the wolf discussion. WY, MT, and ID folks have been working on the wolf issue since 1995. When did SFW get involved?

It is laughable that SFW is even allowed in the court room on the wolf issue. Where was SFW when it mattered and before the wolf issue represented something more than new money and new members? Not at any of the meetings I was at.

Some very good guys have started an SFW chapter here in Montana, and they are risking their credibility and reputations to improve hunting in Montana.

If they are going to be burdened by this level of ignorance and arrogance coming from you, and the others at SFW, all their hard work will be for naught.

Some of my best hunting friends are from Wyoming. They are great guys who come across much different than you have with those comments. So, I am not using your comments, and WYSFW, to form my opinions of the great guys I know from Wyoming.

In that article, your quote did not say that each state should be allowed to manage wolves withing their borders as they see fit. An idea I think we would all agree to.

What you said is this quote, "But in part, it's their fault (MT and ID) for being so critical of Wyoming?s management plan."

MT and ID were not critical of the Wyoming plan, as you say. Going our own direction, in a manner that reflect our ideals and beliefs, is not being critical of what you wanted to do in Wyoming. But, think what you want.

Wyoming has chosen to do what they damn well please, as they should. To comment that your dimming plight is the fault of Montana and Idaho for not folding our tents and following your lead, a lead now looking to be pretty foolish in getting state management of wolves, reflects poorly on you and the organization you represent.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[SMOKESTICK]

BigFin,

I never claimed nor stated that either Idaho or Montana had "any influence" on Wyoming's plan. What I said is that the three states did not stand united.

States can and will manage their wildlife resources differently.

Here is the quote again for you to see what I said.

Others, including Bob Wharff, executive director of the Wyoming chapter of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, argue that individual states should be given the responsibility of managing wildlife within their borders. Wharff, however, does not believe this will be the outcome of this lawsuit.

?It's a tragedy that Idaho and Montana will lose the opportunity to manage the wildlife as they see fit,? he said. ?But in part, it's their fault for being so critical of Wyoming?s management plan. As a whole, we all lose when we have a species listed when that listing isn't warranted.?

I am sure this is what the opposition would like to see; sportsmen fighting among ourselves instead of fighting our real enemies.

 

[feduptwo]

The fact is that Judge Malloy will do whatever the greenies want. As soon as it was determined that this was the court that it was to be heard in most of us knew we were sunk; both the first decision and this one. By the way it was no accident that it was filed in this court. This judge has a 90+% approval rating from the enviromental voters league (meaning that 90% of the time he has sided with this group on enviromental issues.
Every sportsmen should support Wyoming's fight to manage wolves they way we want them managed. The people that understand wolf management should know that sportsmen will never control a wolf population. Trophy game restricts the use of aerial gunning and other lethal removal methods.
I wish the best for Idaho and Montana but the truth the ag dept kills more wolves, per capita, in Wyoming (still listed) than sportsmen kill (delisted) in the other two states.
The other fact is that wolves have exceeded their recovery goals by 100% or more. You guys argue that Wyoming should sucumb to plans like Montana and Idaho assume that your dealing with a upfront, honest, govt agency. The USFWS has already changed the rules 5 or 6 times since recovery goals have been met.
Wyoming made concession after concession till the USFWS had a warm and fuzzy about our dual managment plan. Judge Malloy then said it would not work. All the sudden Wyoming was in the wrong and our plan was flawed (even though two months before everything with Wyoming's plan was OK). The USFWS should have appealed the first decsion but instead the critized Wyoming for having a inadequate plan.

 

[PleaseDear]

Nothing personal intended here but I disagree with ya Bob.

Idaho and Montana played the game to win on some game management of the Wolf.

Wyoming/ SFW tryed to play big shot for increase membership drive at the same time.....'Fight The Wolf With Us'...

I believe that Wyoming LOST the battle because of playing big shot and not playing with in the same rules and agenda as Montana and Idaho did so they could manage the wolf with hunting.

Wyoming is years behind now because of SFW.

Simply put, that one brief timeframe of shoot any wolf ya see in Wyoming is way over and not a single wolf has been harvested since under any Wolf Management plan.

It saddens me to see SFW in Wyoming trying to blame Idaho and Montana for the tremendous loss of Wolf Management that SFW failed to provied for Wyoming ranchers/outfitters/hunters-both ressy and non-ressy with all SFW press release of the big fight and blame game of loss.

Thanks for your time,


Robb

 

[SMOKESTICK]

Robb,

You have it all wrong.

First, Wyoming's dual management plan was not developed by WY SFW, it was developed prior to SFW even entering the State.
Second, it has never simply been about membership for SFW. WY SFW formed a coalition with several different Wyoming based organizations to defend our states right to manage our wildlife resources to meet our needs. Wyoming chose to stand up for ourselves.
Third, Wyoming has not lost the battle as you state. We are still alive and well. When the Regional Director for the US Fish & Wildlife Service wrote Wyoming's wolf management plan, Wyoming did obtain an approved plan. Simply because the Department of Justice refuses to defend it doesn't obligate Wyoming to surrender our rights. As was stated earlier, Wyoming has still be able to kill wolves. While I would prefer that sportsmen had that opportunity, I remain convinced the federal government has no place dictating to the states how our wildlife resources are managed. Those that have not stood behind Wyoming either ignore the implications or do not understand the precedence and threat to our North American Wildlife Management Model. If we do not cease this opportunity to repeal or amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) we will continue to see it infringe upon our states rights. Wyoming also has another listed species that is overwhelmingly impact wildlife populations as well. The grizzly bear is expanding into areas where we do not want them to occupy.
It saddens me that Idaho & Montana may also lose their ability to manage wolves as they see fit to do. However, you must be simple to not understand that both states chose to take the actions they took.
It saddens me that too many sportsmen outside the state of Wyoming do not understand that capitulation on this point will not resolve the problem. Had Wyoming ceded to outside pressures, opposition would have still found something to challenge and re-list wolves just as they have with the grizzly bear. I fear we have two choices to choose from; repeal the ESA or cede states rights to manage wildlife within their respective borders, especially predators. Push back or surrender; your choice to make.

 

[BigFin]

Bob:

I find it strange that everyone else has it all wrong, according to you/WYSFW. Robb seems to be a well thought out guy on topics I have seen in years of reading his posts. Now, he is wrong too.

I am not sure if you read your comments before you post them, but again, your words give a serious current of condecension. Whether that is your intent, or not, that is how most look at it.

You stated - "However, you must be simple to not understand that both states chose to take the actions they took."

Call me simple. I understand the actions those two states took, and that they chose to do so as a reflection of the wishes of their citizens. Going a route that we like is not a surrender to USFWS, as you seem to imply, when you say "push back or surrender."

Other states and their citizens have may a different perspective on the wolf issue than you/SFW do, and by crafting plans that reflect their state's hunting heritage and conservation history, they are not caving in. You seem to imply that any state not taking your/WYSFW path, is wrong.

You stated - "It saddens me that too many sportsmen outside the state of Wyoming do not understand that capitulation on this point will not resolve the problem."

I find it interesting that you would state that only a few poeple within the borders of Wyoming have the answers. You have your persepctive of the problem and how to solve it. Fine, that is what your plan shows.

Other states have a different perspective of the problem and how to solve it. I would not assume that "sportsmen outside the state of Wyoming do not understand........" just because they see the problem differently as it applies to them, their communities, and their wildlife resources.

You stated - "Those that have not stood behind Wyoming either ignore the implications or do not understand the precedence and threat to our North American Wildlife Management Model."

For someone from SFW to talk about the North American Model, is enough to make me fall off my chair. The North American Model certainly is not the path SFW has taken with many of their actions in Utah and AK.

For you to self-righteously proclaim that anyone not standing in your line is either ignorant or lacks understanding, is very offensive.

Maybe my reading comprehension sucks and I am reading your comments incorrectly. Until my comprehesion improves, I will continue to find them very arrogant.

I hope Wyoming continues to do as it damn well pleases. I have no problem with that.

Just not gonna stand by silently, as you blow and carry on about how every problem you see is the fault of others and how everyone else is so ignorant about the topic at hand.

As I write this, there is effort underfoot in Montana to force our agency and legislature to go forward with our wolf season, regardless of the outcome of this case. If successful in doing so, we will assert our state rights in managing wildlife - one topic we seem to be able to agree on. And if successful, an effort I suspect SFW will try to take credit for.

Hopefully us ignorant, simple, bumpkins outside of the SFW leadership will be able to handle our own affairs. If not, I am sure that SFW will gladly come to our rescue and our pocketbooks, to save us from ourselves. No thanks. We didn't need SFW's interference up until now, and we won't need it going forward.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-17-10 AT 02:52PM (MST)[p]Bob,

How exactly does promoting and recommending transferable landowner tags and outfitters sponsored tags help the North American Model of Wildlife Management?

Just curious, as I believe the vast majority of WY hunters and anglers would not agree with you that WYSFW, UTSFW, or AKSFW are following anything but their own twisted agenda.

Like BigFin, I also find it hard to believe that everyone, other than SFW is wrong on this wolf issue. Its just not true, you and SFW are fighting a battle you will not win, I can assure you of that.

If you and your buddy Don think you can change the ESA...you're not only wrong, you're out of your damn minds. The ESA has been in place for a long time, there is a massive amount of case history and interpretation of the ESA. It doesnt favor SFW stance...but is what judges are required to look at when deciding issues related to the ESA.

Secondly, the item you're ignoring is that all three states agreed to the wolf reintroduction and the EIS that spelled out, in great detail, how the process would work. With the exception of WY's wrong-headed stance against the EIS and ESA, the process has worked, exactly as it was laid out in 1993-1994.

Perhaps if you'd take the time to read the EIS and the ESA, you'd start to understand that you and SFW are S.O.L. in your approach. There is not ONE, but TWO, legal and binding contracts that you/sfw choose to ignore. You cant agree to an alternative in the EIS on the one hand...then 5-6 years down the road choose to ignore that agreement. Not how it works, and exactly why Wyoming is getting throttled by the courts.

I think its time you ask the Hunter, Anglers, and Citizens what they want in regard to the wolf issue. I can tell you, that after talking to many, many, many hunters in Wyoming...they are all fed up with the inaction and ineffectiveness of SFW battle with the Feds. We're done with it, we want wolf management in the hands of the State of Wyoming...and we want it NOW!

Enough of the Don Peay train wreck, out-right lies and distortions of the truth.

I just went to the WYSFW website and you posted an email Don authored about MT's wolf season. In that letter, he states that, "Montana closed it season after only 50 wolves were shot, instead of continuing it to the 75 that was agreed on".

That, is an out-right lie...plain and simple. There were 72 wolves shot out of the possible quota of 75...I didnt see YOU or any other SFW Chapter correcting his lies.

This is classic SFW...if the truth doesnt fit your agenda...lie...make stuff up. Further, SFW has long ago stopped listening to its membership...thats very obvious in AK, UT, and certainly WY.

WYSFW is ignoring what the majority of citizens want, and that is state control of wolves.

 

[NickW]

If the judge decides to put all the wolves back on the "List", I can assure you that tags, seasons and quotas will become a thing of the past and wolves will start being held in check by "local" means!!!

 

[huntin100]

Smokestick,

The way I see it. The origional plan said 150 wolves in each state. It was to keep elk populations in check in the park. The environmental groups agreed. Now there are over 1,700 wolves and these environmental groups now say they need more than 2,000 wolves for genetic diversification. These groups lied.

The professionals including Ed Bangs said wyomings plan met the criteria to delist wolves. There was nothing in the original plan that said Wyoming needed wolves through out the whole state.

The liberal Judge has a record of agreeing with these environments groups 90% of the time. The ESA is broken. It should be fixed.

These environmental groups want wolves to spread to UT and CO.

Not all sportsmen believe that WY has made poor decisions in wolf plans. Wildlife should be managed per each state.

Time will tell. Good luck in the fight. It's a hard issue to fight.

 

[WYNONTYPICAL]

Buzz,

I see your back to your old ways of driving wedges between sportsman. And your wrong about what most people want in Wyoming. Most people here don't want to be railroaded by government boys like yourself... Wyoming's management plan is the only plan that will work for population control. With or without the feds Wyoming will take care of Wyoming"s own back yard! This is the cowboy state!

Hopefully sportsman will stand together and not let guys like Buzz mud the water...

Robb Wiley
Non-Typical Outfitters

 

[PleaseDear]

Thanks for your input Bob.

I do not believe I have anything WRONG----


How many wolves in Idaho and Montana have been harvested under the Idaho and Montana Wolf Management Plan that has been on going?

How much $$$$ from said wolf tag sales has Idaho and Montana recieved?

Now compare those ### of harvests and $$$$ vs Wyoming and SFW's Big Blow-Big Shot----harvest/$$$$$?


So sorry---- but I feel it is just the same old SFW (pick any state) give us your $$$ for what ever the very LATEST agenda is for promoting yet another MONEY drive for SFW.

Once again---nothing at all 'personal' against you Bob.

Please have a safe and very enjoyable Fathers Day---All,

Robb

 

[Outdoors]

Plain and simple....

SFW = Sportsman For Wealthy

Want to reduce the number of tags in the public draw and shift them to be sold to the wealthy each year? Then SFW is for you. Are you an outfitter and wish a bunch of tags would be guaranteed to land with welathy folks that can afford to hire you? Then SFW is for you.

Otherwise, there are better and more financially accountable organizations to support.

 

[Triple_BB]

As long as idiots like Don Molloy are sitting on the bench, the wolf issue will never be resolved. The enviro whackos filed suit this time based on their best opportunity to shut down wolf hunting. If Wyoming had followed MT & ID, they'd have come up with a different reason to file a lawsuit. And as long as any type of wolf hunting exists, one whacko group or another will continue to push litigation. Once that suit starts, other clowns will join in. Idiots like Molloy will continue to try and pacify those who agree with his left wing liberal agenda. Bottom line is, until the US Supreme Court rules on this issue, litigation of one type or another will continue to drag on. I've said it for years, Wyoming should've filed suit right from the get go and started pushing this towards the US Supreme Court. Given its been 15 years since the reintroduction, we'd probably be close to a resolution one way or the other. Hopefully Wyoming doesn't capitulate to out of state pressures once we get a new governor and accept a plan like MT or ID. Additionally, I'd like to see SFW butt out. Wyoming has been able to handle this fight on its own. We don't need an organization that caters to wealthy hunters and outfitters trying to lay claim to any potential favorable resolution down the road. Any chance I get to let a game warden or elected official know, I tell'um the SFW doesn't represent me or the average Joe hunter. Just my two cents...

 

[Gator]

Maybe those other states was worry it would end up with a Wilderness guide law like Wyoming. Where does the welfare line start.
At the front door of SFW Wyo.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-19-10 AT 05:07PM (MST)[p]WYNONTYPICAL,

I disagree, most of the hunters I talk to in Wyoming want state control of wolves, they want a hunting season.

I also disagree that WY's plan is the only one that will control wolf populations. Try reading the data on the hunts in ID and MT. The wolf population in the tri-state area only increased by 4% this year...a massive decline over the last 9 years of 15% or more growth rate. Thats convincing evidence that even very limited hunting made a huge difference. If Wyoming would have had even a small legal season this year, wolf populations likely would have been flat or even declined slightly.

Also, Wyoming will never win the fight they've chosen. The ESA cannot be ignored...period. Also, Wyoming agreed to the EIS in 1994. If you'd take the time to read the EIS, you'd realize that all three states had to have an acceptable wolf plan in place before delisting and before the Feds gave the states control.

Wyoming does not have an acceptable plan...period.

As far as driving a wedge between hunters, SFW is light years beyond a disagreement between hunters on the issue of wolf management.

You know, little things like giving WY landowners transferable tags, outfitter sponsored tags, being against stream access laws, you know little items that really impact the average DIY WY hunters.

There is not a group that has driven more wedges between sportsmen than SFW...and thats a fact.

 

[eelgrass]

Buzz is right about the power of the ESA. So far, there is no fighting it.

ESA is like the neighborhood gang banger. Montana and Idaho have agreed to pay the protection money, so are allowed a little control. Now the gang is getting greedy and wants more, so they are going to Wyoming and threatening to take it out on Montana and Idaho if they don't play the game.

I for one, admire Wyoming, and support SWF 100%, at least in this endeavor.

 

[WYNONTYPICAL]

Buzz,

Of course everyone you talk in Wyoming wants state control. The management plan Wyoming wants is the best control for the state. It gives us the ability to hold to the original plan. Only having wolves in Yellowstone and the surrounding wilderness areas. Did you forget that part. This whole fight comes down to suitable habitat. Wolves need large tracks of undeveloped land. The rest of Wyoming, Colorado and Utah are not suitable habitat... Come on Buzz your able to see that at least

Idaho and Montana's management was a great start. Let's remember we were hunting animals that have never been hunted. For the short term it might slow the expansion of the population. Buzz your kidding yourself if you believe that in a long term management scenario, the harvests in the current management plans will continue to hold the wolf numbers back. You have to kill close to 80 percent of the population to reduce numbers. Or the pups being born will replace every harvest. Not to mention what happens when you disrupt the social order of the packs from hunting and more than the alfa male and female are breeding.

Buzz, Have you used your high powered research to see how well incidental hunting has worked for Canada and Alaska? I bet the answer is NO!

I think sportsman from all walks of life had better be willing to put there own personal agendas aside to work together. I don't care if your a DIY, Outfitter, Governors tag hunter or what ever. We had better be willing to stand together and fight this together. You may not like Don Pay or SFW but hay at least they're in the fight. Ask yourself, I mean really ask your self, are you willing to watch your hunting honey hole turn into a thing of the past. Then pretend this is not that big of deal. And let guys like Buzz get you pissed off at other hunters over land owner tags and wilderness guide laws and things that really don't matter if we are going to stand together as sportsman.

Guy's like Buzz who claim to be so educated with government studies are dazzling you with smoke and mirrors. Call up a DIY hunter from Cody WY or call up an outfitter from Challis Idaho or go look for an elk in Orofino Idaho if you think this is no big deal.

eelgrass you are right, admiration for Wyoming standing up to a federal railroad job is worthy... I wish more sportsman had the stones to stand up for what is right!

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-10 AT 11:44AM (MST)[p]WYNONTYPICAL,

Its very apparent you have not read the EIS regarding the wolf reintroduction.

I've been involved with this issue, extentsively, since 1992-93 during the Draft EIS process and all that has transpired since.

If you look at the recovery area maps in the Final EIS, you'll note that a large portion of the recovery area does not fall in Yellowstone NP or Wilderness. The plan never stated or implied that wolves would stay behind imaginary boundaries designating our National Parks or Wilderness areas. In fact, the language within the EIS cleary stated the problems we'd have with wolves dispersing into National Forest, BLM, and private properties. Amoung those increased predation on big-game, increased predation on livestock, etc.

With the knowledge that these things were bound to happen, the USFWS adopted an IMMEDIATE option of mediating these issues by designating the reintroduced population as NON-ESSENTIAL. Meaning that aggressive and lethal control of wolves would be granted to address the problems the EIS clearly stated would likely arise.

Since the on-set of wolf reintroduction, wolves have been lethally controlled via various Wildlife Services, issuance of kill permits to landowners facing wolf depredation, etc. For at least the last 5 years in ID and MT, landowners have not even been required to have a kill permit to kill wolves.

So, for you to make a claim, that wolves were to be kept within the imaginary lines of wilderness and National Parks is just a flat out lie and/or a lack of understanding of the issue on your part.

I also find your comparison of remote locations of AK and Canada as a measure to gauge how well we can control wolf populations in the lower-48, a complete joke. You stated yourself that large remote areas are limited in much of ID, MT, and WY. This fact alone means that dispersing wolves will get into trouble fast...and be very accessible to hunters, landowners, and government hunters. In other words, the wolves that disperse into areas with increased potential for conflict...will be dead. That is evidenced by the fact that MT alone, killed over 200 wolves last year via Government control in areas where conflicts with livestock existed.

Comparing whats happening with wolf control measures in ID and MT with vast remote areas of AK and Canada where wolves are rarely hunted or trapped...well thats just ridiculous. Akin to comparing oranges and pineapples. Wolf numbers have not ever gone unchecked in the lower-48, and never will.

I have no doubt that wolves will be controlled in ID, MT, and WY with a combination of sport hunting (I'd also like to see legal trapping used as well), landowner control, and Government hunting/trapping. This last year was a perfect example of how it can...and will work in the future.

As far as Don Peay and SFW, welcome to the "fight" 17 years after the "fight" has already happened. From 1993, when I first attended the scoping meetings regarding wolf management/reintroduction in the draft EIS process, until just the last couple years, I didnt see any representatives from SFW...not a single one. They're wayyyyyyyy too late to this issue, its largely a done deal. The active participants and groups that have been involved for the last 17 years are the ones with the influence over how we are going to manage wolves in the future.

SFW's credibility on this issue is hovering right near ZERO. They're fighting the wolf issue by attacking the ESA and the EIS process, both of which are a sure loser to SFW. Nobody actively enganged in wolf management is paying them any attention...and thats a fact.

I believe that SFW is doing more damage to the North American Model of Wildlife Management than any population of wolves every will. The group is creating a division amoung hunters based on social class and money. They support things like ranching for wildlife programs, transferable landowner tags, outfitter sponsored tags, increased governors tags, more auction tags, things that take PUBLIC wildlife and the publics access to that wildlife off the table for all but the most wealthy of hunters.

Combine that with SFW's lack of support for public access (stream access, Access Yes programs, etc.), its more than apparent who is dividing hunters...and who is stripping the public of their equitable rights to the publics resources.

 

[west]

Whats dumb about this whole thing is we could kill every wolf in Idaho, montana, and wyoming and they wouldn't be even close to extinction. they are all over canada. There are exotic species of game running wild all over south texas...should the US fish and wildlife manage them? Thats what these wolves are..an exotic species. these wolves are twice the size of what was here before. They are not native in anyway. Wyomings original plan is the only way to go. Keep em in the park and shoot the rest. hell we even gave them a few 100 thousand acres outside the park. I see this court case a different way. You shouldn't be able to delist a species in 2 states and not the other. Why? because the species is above and beyond being needing to be on the ESA. So it makes no sense to not allow wyoming to move forward with our plan. I really hope wyoming doesnt compromise. We have elk heards in the Farris, green mountain and others that could not handle wolf impact. If our states had 10,000 wolves the same lawsuits would be going on the second one of these wolves fell to a bullet.


"blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'donnell being fat."

 

[BigFin]

WYNONTYPICAL stated:

"Buzz your kidding yourself if you believe that in a long term management scenario, the harvests in the current management plans will continue to hold the wolf numbers back. You have to kill close to 80 percent of the population to reduce numbers. Or the pups being born will replace every harvest. Not to mention what happens when you disrupt the social order of the packs from hunting and more than the alfa male and female are breeding.

Buzz, Have you used your high powered research to see how well incidental hunting has worked for Canada and Alaska? I bet the answer is NO!"
________________________________________

WYNT, since you are asking others where they go their data, I gotta ask:

- What "High-powered" biological data have you looked at? Data that is spoon-fed information from SFW, doesn't count.

Here is why I ask. I spent time last week with many of the biologists who have made the quota recommendations in Montana. I asked them about a lot of this armchair data that is being thrown around by SFW.

MTFWP has built extensive population models and run their models of harvest based on harvest rates of wolf populations in areas of high hunter density. Not Alaska-type hunter densities, but MT hunter densities. Not sure what ID has done, but I now know how MT has done it.

We talked about the Alaska information/experience with knocking down wolf numbers. Here is the big difference as it relates to Montana.

We have hunter densities during our general rifle elk/deer season that are 10-30X what you find in the remote reaches of Alaska where much of that "impossible to manage with hunter harvest" data has originated.

In a remote place like Alaska, using hunters as the sole source of harvest probably is not going to bring the numbers down to what the new targets are in the MT plan. I suspect the Alaska data is probably correct, but is it useful data for the Lower 48?

Gotta ask SFW, why use AK data for analysis of what will work in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho? In most respects, it has no relevance, as the landscape of hunter density and therefore wolf escapement is completely different.

MTFWP has taken into account the harvest data from the 2009 MT wolf season. They have run their models over a thousand times to see if any scenarios would take the population down below the 10 breeding pairs needed to prevent RE-listing.

Their data shows that the recommended harvest of 216, with similar harvest quotas in future years, combined with predation kills resulting from livestock damage, will bring the number of breeding pairs between 15-20.

They have also considered the fact that if we cannot control populations with the harvest quota that is recommended, they can crank it up in future years and adjust their models.

So, they are very confident this quota and management plan will eventually get us down to 15 breeding pairs, which they think is enough of a safety net to prevent RE-listing, which will happen by getting below the 10 breeding pairs.

I agree with the safe target of 15 breeding pairs. After all the thrash it will have taken to get state control, the last thing most of us want is to fall low enough that the Feds take back management, and we have to go through the entire process again.

I trust their data and models, models that are built around harvest in high hunter density areas, such as Montana, more than the Alaska models.

It is completely inappropriate to use those Alaska models for analysis of the Montana situation. And it is ridiculous that SFW knows that these MT models exist, but don't want to talk about that, but rather want to talk about Alaska.

But don't take my word for it. Pick up the phone and call MT FWP and ask the wolf guys about it. They have put thousands of hours into this, and will talk about it with anyone who wants to listen.

I suspect SFW doesn't want to listen, as it would show their Little Red Riding Hood Stories to be the crock of junk that it is.

Interesting to me the poor fact pattern that SFW wants to apply to the discussion. As an outsider, it appears their bread is buttered by manufacturing fairy tales in the vein of raising more money.

Maybe they have done the biological due diligence and agree that the AK models and data are best suited for MT, WY, and ID. If so, I would like to see the due diligence and ?high-powered research? SFW has done, in the context of the MT plan that they are so critical of.

If SFW examined the Montana facts, they would realize that Montana had a completely different issue to deal with than Wyoming.

We ALREADY had plenty of wolves in NW Montana that had naturally migrated in from Canada before this fiasco started. We had to acknowledge that as part of our plan. Something Wyoming did NOT have to deal with. As such, our plan is going to be different, even if all other factors were the same.

People who have done much research about the Montana plan, the harvest objectives, the history of wolves in Montana, and our conservation history quickly realize that the MT plan reflects what is best for Montana, though SFW may not think it is best of SFW.

For those in WYSFW and more humorously, the Utah-based SFW, to think they know what is best for MT, is amazing.

Most people closely involved in the MT plan are not reading the Cracker Jack biological research that is being spoon-fed by SFW. Maybe that Alaska data, and other information SFW is publishing does apply in WY. If so, that is probably what the WY plan should be based on.

Given the track record of SFW, I am not going to take their word for it, and will continue to do my own research of the MT data. I will rely upon people I trust, not some group who sees the wolf issue as a financial windfall.

And for you to say that SFW is in the fight on our behalf. That is fine, if you have that opinion. Others, myself included, especially in light of the comments of WYSFW/Bob Wharff that started this thread, would have a different opinion.

Where was SFW before the wolf issue became a money maker? If they were involved, they were really quiet, as I never saw or heard them at a single meeting, until recently.

As far as hunters having "the stones," Montana hunters have plenty of "stones." In fact, we are confident enough of our "stones" that we don't need to walk around making fools of ourselves telling the world we have "stones."

We are tired of some recent arrival, SFW, going around making claims that MT and ID are the problem, because we have a plan that doesn't support their stance - a stance completely ignorant of the fact pattern and history of Montana.

For WYSFW to personally feel that way is fine, but to publicly blame MT & ID for the plight they now find themselves in, is very offensive. Not gonna sit idly by and let that go uncontested.

Funny that SFW only arrived in MT a couple months ago, but they claim to know what is best for us, and what we should do. Sorry, pass that Kool-aid to someone else, 'cause we ain't drinking it.

As far as your comment about "stones," if would be a good display of "stones" for SFW to come on this site and tell us from MT how it is that SFW knows so much about MT and why we should listen to them. Why our plan is so bad. Why we should become their puppets and throw away years of planning by our citizens. Why our history and fact pattern should be ignored.

Most importantly, why they think we should subjucate our state right to draft our own plan and jump to the WY/UT version of what is best for MT.

If they do that, I will be surprised, but will gladly listen with an open ear.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[SMOKESTICK]

BigFin,

Not once have I said anything about Montana's plan. I believe you are correct in that Montanan's know what is best for Montana. Never have I tried to imply that Wyoming's plan was anything other than our plan.

You are correct that SFW is just getting started in Montana. WY started up in 2003, as did Idaho. All three states knew the process and participated in it. If you have been involved as long as you claim that you have been, then it should be no surprise to you that de-listing two out of three states within the Rocky Mountain DPS would likely lead to a legal challenge. Both states knew that when they left the "station" and Wyoming behind. I do not desire wolves to go back on the list any more than anyone else does; however, Wyoming should be given the opportunity to manage wolves under their terms.

All three states are unique in their own way, thus warranting diverse plans for each state. However, all three states have an obligation to maintain a minimum number of breeding pairs and a minimum number of wolves. Even though the experts, the science, and the US FWS's own management applications show that Wyoming's plan was as and is adequate to maintain a minimum of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves, both states abandoned Wyoming to the "wolves" so to speak. Perhaps had they stood with Wyoming the results would have been different but we will never know.

As for those that think all Wyoming needed to do was designate wolves as trophy game animals statewide misses the point. Environmental groups would still have been able to challenge genetic connectivity and overall total numbers. Remember they still argue that we need more like 5,000-6,000 wolves. I am convinced that no matter what concession we yield to them, they will always push for expansion. After all, it never has been about recovering wolves has it.

I am sorry BigFin if I offended you or anyone else. That was not my intent. I do not wish for wolves to be re-listed in your state nor in Idaho but I do think it would have been better for all three states had they stood united. I don't blame Idaho nor Montana for pushing forward. Most likely, had the shoe been on the other foot, Wyoming would have left either state at the "station" as well. The point I have been trying to make is that this issue is much bigger than any one state. Our country is in trouble. I see a similar thing happening in Arizona. How many states have stood behind them? The balance has been allowed to shift too much towards the federal government. States need to reassert their rights or else the federal government will continue to expand their authority at our expense.

Buzzed, I wasn't even going to acknowledge your existence but you continue to spew forth your half truths & lies.

Wyoming already has defacto set aside licenses for land owners. What has that gotten the average guy in Wyoming? Absolutely nothing. Do you think that situation will ever fix itself?

WY SFW has never asked for an expansion of Governor's Licenses nor Commissioner's Licenses. That system was already in place when we started here.

Outfitter's are sportsmen too; whether or not you want to admit it. While we will have some differing opinions, I believe we are better off working with them than against them. We need to defend our hunting heritage as it now faces its greatest threat ever. Dividing as sportsmen will not help us as we fight our very real enemies.

Hopefully, that ads some clarity to what Buzzed has claimed about WY SFW.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-10 AT 03:18PM (MST)[p]Bob,

There is no reason why ID and MT should have stayed the course with Wyoming. Wyomings lack of an acceptable plan and the ensuing lawsuit WY filed, would have just kept wolf numbers growing in both states.

Wyomings defiance to abide by the EIS, THAT WY AGREED TO, back in 1993, is the exact reason why MT and ID had delays in getting wolves delisted and hunting seasons started. Wolf populations were high enough at least 5 years ago to get them delisted and seasons started.

Not everyone agreed that WY's plan was acceptable...did they?

As far as landowner licenses go, I dont care if they are issued to landowners ONLY and as long as they're not transferable, I could care less. There is no doubt that ranchers provide wildlife habitat. Because of that, I have no trouble with the WYG&F issuing landonwers tags for species they support on their property. What I have a problem with, along with just about all average DIY hunters, is making those permits transferable and being put up for sale. Look to CO and NM for proof of how that program works. I suggest you talk to the DIY type hunters in NM and see how well they like the seperate outfitter draw, transferable landowner licenses. I clearly remember that the WWF and BOW had to waste time, effort, and money to fight WYSFW's proposal to get transferable landowner tags and also guaranteed outfitter licenses stopped. In fact, I called you out on this forum regarding both issues. Maybe you forgot?

When long established sportsmen groups are having to fight SFW over issues like that...its pretty difficult, if not impossible, for you to say SFW isnt dividing hunters.

As far as the outfitters sponsored tags go, I can tell you that a vast majority of WY resident and non-resident hunters oppose them. The outfitting lobby in WY is already receiving a subsidy via a very biased law (Wilderness Guide Law) that excludes NR from hunting federal lands. Can you explain how laws like the Wilderness guide law are uniting hunters? I know you wont attempt an answer...wouldnt want to pi$$ off your outfitter constituancy that support your group. Yet, you dont find any problem with WYSFW defying the wishes of a majority of hunters/anglers in Wyoming. Veddy funny.

There is no question that the actions of SFW in all states they've entered, has caused a huge division in sportsmen.

You just did a first class job of dividing hunters last week when you opened your mouth to the press on the wolf issue...an issue that you dont have a clue about...congratulations.

 

[BigFin]

Bob:

When your comments state that we are partially to blame, that implies that WY is right and MT/ID are wrong. Niether side is right or wrong, if they are doing what is best for their state.

Whether we agree on the approach each state has taken, so long as it reflects the values of those citizens, it is the right approach.

In the above post, you have again stated that MT and ID left the station and left Wyoming behind.

It is that notion and the continued arrogance that you know what is best of MT/ID that is so damn annoying. Can you not accept it is what it is, and quit blaming others, either directly or indirectly?

You do not have the answers for everyone. Maybe for WY, but not for everyone. Get over it and move on to a solution that will work. Blaming others and whining that they did not support your decision is not a solution.

If it continues, the time will come that Montana hunters will start blaming WYSFW. As of right now, we all appreciate Wyoming is doing what it wants, which is their state right.

Continuing to blame us for your situation will only make the problem worse, and over time, your continued sniveling about that will turn MT hunters against the WY approach. Exactly what you say the pro-wolfers want, and exactly what SFW is doing with your continued blame game.

I wonder how many WY hunters blame Montana, or is it just WYSFW who blames Montana? Would like to know. I have yet to talk to one Montana guy who blames WY, even though we know it might make things more difficult for us to implement our plan.

You continue to state that MT/ID left WY standing alone. Not sure how many times I have to type this - WE DID NOT!

You went your route, we went ours. No need to state as you have, that one state bailed out on the other. Time to take some responsibility that comes with exercising your state rights and quit blaming it on everyone else.

It is merely a function of each state doing what they feel is best. Pretty simple.

All this talk about unite is BS. When two of the three states feel one way, and the third state feels a different way, their can be no "uniting" without at least one state giving up what their citizens supposedly want. I wouldn't ask any of the other states to do it, and it is hypocritical for you and SFW would ask other states to do it, all the while beating the "states rights" drum.

So get over the "uniting" argument and move on. That is nothing but a back door blame game.

I will continue to defend Montana's right to do as it pleases and defend Wyoming's right to do the same. But, that does not mean I am going to sit and listen to you, and others at SFW, imply and comment outright that you think Montana and Idaho bailed out. Not the case.

In my first post, I stated that we all knew this was the path the re-introduction would take. Anyone who did not think this would end up in court was off in LaLaLand. So legal challenges were no surprise to me, or anyone else I know.

Yes, when we adopted the MT plan, we were concerned that the delisting of two out of three states would result in a challenge. That is why we watched so closely what was going on in Wyoming, though we knew there was nothing we could do about that, as it was/is as much Wyoming's right to do as they please, as it is for Montana to do as we please.

I am certainly not going to blame Wyoming for that, as you have tried to blame MT and ID. Just an outcome that we have to live with.

As you stated, everyone knew that no matter how good the state plans were, they would be challenged. But, that doesn't mean a challenge by the pro-wolf nuts would prevail.

I think most can see from the court hearings, that if not for all three states being tied together in the RE-introduction agrement, that any challenges the pro-wolfers had of the MT plan would have been ignored by the court and MT would be on our merry way, managing wolves in a plan that is reflective of what our people want.

Unfortunately, most of the morons on the pro-wolf legal side live in the same city I do. So, I occassionally have to cross paths with them. They all sat in on the MT plan meetings and when they saw final state plans, they immediately changed their legal tactic to attacking the WY plan, as they saw that as their best chance.

They flat out stated that attacking what they perceived to be the most vulnerable of the three state plans was their strategy. They know the chain is only as strong as the weakest link, and in this case they placed their bets that the WY plan would be that weak link.

I don't like that, but such is the strategy they have been using. Unfortunately, seems to have some validity with the courts, as much as we would disagree with the court.

I don't think anyone likes the re-introduction agreement putting us all in the same ship, as there is no way three states are going to have identical plans.

So now that we find ourselves in this situation, my question to you is this:

Is SFW going to continue to throw MT and ID under the bus, or are you going to appreciate that our plans reflect thousands of hours of our citizens working to form plans that reflect our values, and quit using MT/ID as an excuse for an outcome none of us want - continued Fed control?

Are you going to find a way to reconcile what Wyoming citizens want in their wolf plan, compared to what will withstand legal challenges, and if you do not end up with control of wolves, accept that as a reality of exercising your state right and stop blaming the outcome of such on your neighbors?

I really hope this can move on to finding solutions, rather than placing blame. I feel your continued criticism of your neighboring states is counter productive. I will continue to defend all states rights to do as they please, even if it does put you and I in opposition.

Looking forward to the day we can be on the same side.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[WYNONTYPICAL]

Buzz,

Your right I have not had enough boredom in my life to sit and read the EIS... Most of the time I don't trust what's being written by the so call experts who are suppose to have it all figured out.

But what I have done is have I watched this wolf issue transpire from the very beginning. I worked in montana with some of the guys who were acclimating the transplanted wolves to the yellowstone area. I have visited with the "experts in the field" Monitoring the packs. And watched this transpire with my own eyes. I took "so called" or "self proclaimed" world wolf experts on snowmobile tours in the Jackson area and listened to what the experts were saying then. Every couple of years the "science" changes. I have seen with my own eye's the destruction of ounce healthy herds. I listened to the promises made about recovery. I have worked with some of the government trappers killing the problem wolves. The whole time there is somebody just like you spouting off about the studies and the science distracting folks from the truth.

Your welcome to discredit me for my time spent reading the EIS, ESA OR BS(bull shitt) you government boys bring to the fight. I don't have the desire to take that much time out of being in the mountains. I would rather go experience it rather than blow hot air about how educated I am in reading someone else's BS.

What I talk about is what I have seen in 18 years of making a living in the rugged wildernesses of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Alaska. And what others with much more experiences and knowledge than myself have passed on. I have hunted these wolves myself. Bought two tags in Idaho last season. Hunted them in Wyoming for a short legal time.

Buzz you can smoke screen people with your numbers and studies but it is really apparent to me you have not spent much time in the wilderness watching what these wolves are doing. Maybe you have tried (most of you educated folks have a tough time away from the city). I would be willing to show you if you thought you could keep up...

BigFin,

My data comes from miles and miles in the mountains, living it... Not talking about it. Normally I am not someone who would take the time to argue on a web site. But from what I have seen with my own eyes and what I have learned from others whom I trust. The days of sitting back and letting the experts do what is best are over for me. I hope and pray that Montana gets it right. I have faith that the good people of Montana will do what is best for Montana.

As far as SFW I don't even belong to my local chapter. I am not a member. But I will stand behind them in this battle and I will donate money to help in this fight. I don't agree with all of there policy's. But at least they are in the fight. You tell me how we are going to get this problem solved I am all in.

My point about Alaska and Canada... Once the wolves get a couple of generations of being hunted, these ID & MT management plans are not going to work. My proof is not a fairy tail. Wolves will go nocturnal and all you will see is tracks and their carnage. They will be 20 miles from where you see their tracks at daylight. I have seen that myself in Wyoming... I have talked with many hunters who hunt wolves all winter and every winter in Alaska and Canada

But if you try to convince me that this wolf deal is not a problem then I will tell you you had better wake up if your a hunter...

The only way I see we will get real control of theses wolves is when hunters stand together. And have the "STONES" to stay there. So watching the way hunters get along on this site we are probably SOL. But I am not going to give up... are you??

 

[BuzzH]

WYNONTYPICAL,

There is NO way that you can address a problem without understanding it. You cant make false claims like, "wolves were supposed to stay in YNP and Wilderness areas"...thats not the truth. There was no smoke and mirrors, there were defined recovery areas, core recovery areas, and areas that wolves would likely move into after reintroduction.

What MUST happen if you want to address issues is get your gdamn facts straight. You arent going to get anywhere when your understanding and credibility are shot before you even start seeking solutions.

I will also tell you that talking with your outfitter friends, while great around a campfire, means NOTHING in a battle like this. I dont care how much time you or I spend in the woods, I dont care what we see...doesnt mean a single damn thing in a courtroom.

Perhaps unfortunately, these issues are not decided by rednecks, not decided by hippies, but decided by judges. Because of that ONE fact, it is imperative to understand the process that has led us all to this point. As boring as it may be, and trust me it bores me to tears at times, to make an informed decision and/or recommendations for wolf management, I had no choice but to read the EIS. No choice.

I can assure you that I spend more time in the woods either working or hunting than 99% of the U.S. population. You talk as though you're the only person on the planet that spends any amount of time outdoors.

I also disagree that wolves will become unhuntable or uncontrolable because of hunting pressure. Pure BS. Like BigFin already stated, the hunter densities are so much higher that wolves staying away from people long enough to die of old age is not real likely. Further, I had a very long discussion with a Government Hunter friend about 3 weeks ago while we were hunting bears in Wyoming. I specifically asked him if he thought wolves were uncontrollable in MT, ID and WY. He didnt think so, and neither do I...and I dont care how much pressure they get.

 

[BigFin]

WYNT- Not giving up here. Too much at stake with the wolf problem. I think we all agree it is a problem, or there wouldn't be this level of dialogue.

Thanks for the answers. Guess we just have a different level of trust in biologists and data we rely upon. Having spent my life hunting and trapping as you have, I have had good luck relying on biologists to add to what my personal observations tell me.

I do think the ID/MT plans will work. Wolves will have to go somewhere, and that somewhere will eventually have a guy with a rifle waiting for the wolf.

And, the Montana wolf plan will allow for trapping. Having caught wolves in coyote traps, it is my impression that they are very trappable. Between hard hunting and trapping, I am confident we will keep wolves within our plan population objectives, once we get final management control.

How to solve this? Hmmm. Don't know. I guess each state will have to figure that out for themselves.

I think all hunters are staying together on states doing as they damn well please. And, they all have the "stones" to stay there on states rights.

But, when we start blaming the others for the outcome of our own decisions, the ground we stand on starts to erode real fast. And if the blaming continues, I can see the ground eroding faster than any of us can put it back in place.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[WYNONTYPICAL]

Buzz,

Who side are you on? You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe you don't even know. I have a hard time believing the way you blabber on here at MM you could have a government hunter friend...

So your never going to see me in the courtroom. So I am not going to waste my time reading your EIS ESA or BS. I am damn sure we were not suppose have 2000 wolves in the beginning and still be talking about management. So sorry for not getting all the "LIES" oh excuse me facts straight. Who can keep track?

Let's hope that in all yours and BigFin's experience in hunting wolves your right. Because we are Damn sure going to find out. I guess maybe the wolves I hunted were smarter than those in Montana.

If we rednecks or sportsman can get together. We will get this problem solved. Even with you BUZZ!!

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-10 AT 05:24PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-10 AT 05:21?PM (MST)

WYNONTYPICAL,

I'm on the side of DIY type hunters. I'm on the side of people who want responsible wildlife management driven by biology and science.

I'm on the side of idividual states managing the game within their borders as they see fit, providing that management is consistent with state and federal regulations.

I enjoy discussing these things and working with groups and individuals who are educated on the subjects, dont really care to be involved with idiots who still believe wolves are going to be eliminated from the landscape...or even believe that wolves will be managed at minimum levels.

I deal in reality and the sportsmens groups in MT and WY that I'm affiliated with have a very good grasp on what it takes, and will take in the future to manage wolves at acceptable levels that all interested parties can live with.

Its already happening in MT and ID, and those states and their associated sportsmen and sporting groups deserve a big pat on the back for what they've already accomplished. They've invested heavily (monitarily, time and effort wise) into the issue, always have, and likely always will. They've proven that wolves can be managed at acceptable levels, and that the ESA works to restore wildlife populations.

What they dont need is for Bob Wharff and SFW to blame them for WY's unacceptable plan and for WY's lack of any kind of state control of wolves. Bob and SFW should take a good look in the mirror if they want to blame anybody.

I also believe that WYSFW is not representing what a majority of WY hunters want, on this issue, as well as other key issues in Wyoming.

Anyone that supports WYSFW's approach to wolf management is wasting money, time, and effort on a sure loser.

The most ridiculous part of the whole issue with Wyoming is how easy the solution is. Just come up with an acceptable plan, thats it. All that would require is to drop the dual classification, make wolves a trophy game animal state-wide.

 

[WYNONTYPICAL]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-10 AT 09:48PM (MST)[p]Buzz.

I'm confident it will not take long to see who the "IDIOT" is in this fight. You keep enjoying driving wedges between sportsman. That is all I have seen from your responses nothing more. See where that gets us...

 

[feduptwo]

BUZZ,

Your dead wrong on this one. This is how it goes if we sucumb to UWFWS and radical judges. REVERSE TIME LINE:
1. Wyoming "fixes our plan" and makes it acceptable for the USFWS. (By the way our plan has already been acceptable no less than 3 times)
2. Judge approves the three plans. USFWS Delists wolves again
3. After a few months of judge shopping, and finding the best court in which to file their frivlous lawsuit the enviros file a lawsuit to another liberal judge, Maybe even Judge Malloy. Enviros state that hunters that are chasing wolves cause wolves to wear their pads uneven and therefore are asking to suspend hunting season until studies can be done to make sure uneven pad wear won't cause this very fragile species to go back on the endangered species list.
4. Liberal judge agrees. USFWS all the sudden sees a huge need to study pad wear and then finds that yes indeed dastardly hunters are causing pads to wear uneven and we must come up with new plans to protect the poor wolves feet. After all these are a very sensitive species.
5. After an acceptable plan that ensures wolves foot health, including capturing all wolves and issuing them special shoes made by Nike the states again petition for de-listing. USFWS grants delisting.
6. Go back to step 3. Insert different judge, different enviromental groups, and different problem, probably wolf hemmoroids. Repeat this step everytime you get to step 5.
Your going to lose every time you negotiate with these groups, these judges, and most of all the USFWS. Ask SFW the've wasted all their time, money, political capital, and effort in a futile effort. Not to mention burning out 100's of volunteers and making this a NW WYO only group of sportsmen.
Wyoming killed more wolves last year per capita than either of the states that had a hunting season.
This problem fixes itself when they eat theirselves out of house and home (which in some areas there already there) or were burning tires to stay warm and the bs govt agencies are disbanded. Wolf will taste pretty good when its the only protein going.

 

[feduptwo]

Buzz,
By the way if your were truley Quote: "on the side of DIY type hunters. I'm on the side of people who want responsible wildlife management driven by biology and science" END QUOTE you would be on Wyoming's side to manage Wyoming's wolves how we see fit because the only way Wyoming's wolves go extinct again is if they run out of food, which is looking like a reality more and more every day.

 

[BigFin]

Fedup:

I have heard and read this quote many times lately. You have made the quote, also.

"Wyoming killed more wolves last year per capita than either of the states that had a hunting season."

Where is that data coming from and what is the numerator and denominator in the "per capita" part? I am seriously interested to know.

I have the kill data for all three states, both hunter and agency depredation kills, and am wondering how that is being calculated for this quote.

Is it per citizen? Per hunter? Per wolf? Per elk?

Just curious. Thanks for any insight you can provide.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"