Trouthunterdj, I agree with you as well. My point is that there comes a point where hunters simply won't pay increasing increasing tag and license fees and outfitter fees for a wilderness camping experience, which is what they are getting in many parts of Idaho now. A know very good outfitters in Idaho with great areas that booked fewer than 10 hunters this year. Quite simply, that's not a business model that's sustainable. I think the Idaho F&G department has come to the same conclusion and that is why the state is getting so aggressive on the whole wolf situation.

EB - That exactly what is going to happen. Why would you pay $3,000 to $5,000 for Wilderness camping trip? Hunters will still buy the tags for $1,000 but will hunt on their own in many cases.

If you are going to hire a guide, you expect to shoot an elk. When that is no longer the case, why hire a guide? The outfitters and their families are going to be the real loss.


ddj

We're just starting down the wolf path here, so I'm hardly one to comment.

In my opinion though, in general we cannot have human hunters and wolf hunters chasing the same herds. I believe this was a fundamental underpinning of the "reintroduction" mentality. With apex predators firmly entrenched and happily munching big game, there is little need for human hunters to manage that game. Voila, antihunters' wet dreams come true. I'm sure there are or will be local or regional exceptions, but by and large I suspect the wolves will significantly decrease the need or justification for human hunters.

Dear Desert Ram:

You and I are in complete agreement.

I think the 1980-1995 thinking by the lead plaintiffs in the 2008 and 2009 wolf lawsuits was to remove human big game hunting in the west. The 200 lb. Canada grey wolf was the tool.

Nothing more than that.

Pretty disgusting, and I am going to do something about this.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

there is no such animal as a 200 lb wolf

Dear Ravenr:

That's what I was told by a local hunter in Cody, Wyoming. He said they had shot some, and one scaled out at over 200 lbs.

Seems incredible, and I wasn't there, but that's what I was told by a credible source.

Measured after a full engorgement?

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

if they were hunting around cody,
they were poaching.
there has never been a season open there.
and jelly stone wolf wranglers caught the heaviest wolf recorded since the introduction this spring and it was engorged on a winter kill buffalo.
weight reported in the local paper and ynp website @ 143 lbs.
and thou i apprieciate your interest in "our"
wolf problems and all your conversations with the ranger ricks and the other wannabee badge wearing "outdoorsmen"
it doesn't replace "boots on the ground,seen it with my own eyes" knowledge.
unless i'm talking to doug smith(ynp's #1 wolf man) i don't trust a word of it.
oh by the way, i live in cody wy and have spent
a couple 100 days afield every year long before the wolf got here.
my closest partner has caught and handled more wolves than any other man in the lower 48 and has never had one weigh out over 140.
he runs the capture crew that catches them for the feds.

sincerely, ravenr

quote:

Originally posted by ravenr:
if they were hunting around cody,
they were poaching.
there has never been a season open there.
and jelly stone wolf wranglers caught the heaviest wolf recorded since the introduction this spring and it was engorged on a winter kill buffalo.
weight reported in the local paper and ynp website @ 143 lbs.
and thou i apprieciate your interest in "our"
wolf problems and all your conversations with the ranger ricks and the other wannabee badge wearing "outdoorsmen"
it doesn't replace "boots on the ground,seen it with my own eyes" knowledge.
unless i'm talking to doug smith(ynp's #1 wolf man) i don't trust a word of it.
oh by the way, i live in cody wy and have spent
a couple 100 days afield every year long before the wolf got here.
my closest partner has caught and handled more wolves than any other man in the lower 48 and has never had one weigh out over 140.
he runs the capture crew that catches them for the feds.

sincerely, ravenr

Who gives a rip what wolves weigh? Whether 200 lbs, 143 lbs or just 43 lbs, they are game killing machines plain and simple. Where wolves exist in sufficient numbers, game suffers greatly. I'm not an advocate of total eradication of wolves, but to not manage them at all is insane. It is time for conservationists to stand up to these preservationists and animal rights whack jobs and push back,hard.

Dear Ravenr:

Actually, it is all our problem: wolves.

I would like to hunt elk, moose and deer in one or more of the following states: Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, New Mexico (maybe Colorado, already lived there for four years) and Washington.

But based upon the Idaho Fish and Game wolf map, lots of research on my part and the "ranger rick Sam C.", who was one serious wolf expert, my "problem" will become your problem, since I won't be spending money in those states where there isn't any game.

Hunters don't buy the licenses, there is no game management, and then no game.

Got it now, pal?

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear ravenr:

I spoke again with my contact in Cody, Wyoming, and I was wrong about the 200 lb. local wolf kill.

He told me that a Canada wolf can go up to 175 lbs. with the record ones in Minnesota and Alaska.

My mistake.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Yale, I agree with many of your points but why do you have to be so smarmy and condescending? When you say things like "Got it now, pal?" you are certainly not making any friends or allies here. I think your time spent in a court room has left you devoid of manners and propriety.

Dear The Slug:

Like former Prime Minister Thatcher, I have hit my limit.

If I come across as "smarmy or condescending", so be it.

I don't start fights, I finish them.

If you read the prior posts, you will see that the innuendo, sniping and condescension began with the ones, who disagreed with my debate topic, and my position vis a vis that topic. I did not start the ad hominem attacks, but I do finish them.

I just turned up the heat until they could not stand it.

It was a tactic, no more and no less.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Chris,
I agree with you 100%, it is time to take the gloves off on this wolf fiasco.

With protection inside National Park boundaries and a liberal open season outside. The wolves will never be gone from the lower 48.

The anti hunting groups, snuck one in the back door, and it is working. They are doing the same thing with Mt Lions in the Black Hills of South Dakota, but fortunately, the GFP, Commission and general public are seeing right through the BS.

Just recently increased the quota another 10 from last year. Not enough IMO, but slowly getting there.

Dear SDHunter:

What I find curious about this whole discussion it that the facts are pretty well known.

Wolves were "reintroduced" into two locales, Idaho and Wyoming.

The official idea was to keep them somewhat limited in numbers.

There would not cause a serious dent in game herds.

Well, if your intent was to remove human big game hunting in the big west, well this worked like crazy.

I'm looking at the Big Game Forever group to see if they are the correct conduit to put up a good fight with the 8-10 plaintiffs in the two federal cases in Missoula, Montana.

If Big Game Forever isn't the right group, then I'll just have to start my own.

I will not let this ruin our and my hunting for deer, elk and moose in the west, if I can.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

you may be alittle late as a one man army saving the west.
big game forever and sportsmen for fish and wildlife made a large campaign contrbution to Harry Reid from nevada to initiate a rider bill to the federal budget bill.
releasing the wolf from federal protection and putting the lower 48 states in charge to manage the wolves in their state.
the federal budget bill is on Obama's desk as we speak and is awaiting his "john hancock"

I sure as hell hope he signs it as soon as possible!

Ravenr, The 143# is about abig as they get and that is with a full belly. So your info is correct. You guys south of the 49th need to greatly reduce the wolf population so you 2 legged hunters have some game left to hunt. Up here in BC we have equally as many wolves but only 80 000 hunters for the whole province. Although the wolves hammer the game it does not effect us like it does you guys.
CH

Dear Ravenr:

I've been a "one man army" before, when I threw felony welfare fraud criminals in prison in the fall of 1991 in San Francisco. My supervisor said it could not be done, but within a few months over 100 were cooling their heals in the state penitentiary because of me.

If you are correct, then the removal of wolves from federal protection will be a tremendous aid in doing a better job of keeping them under control.

Nevertheless, do not underestimate the resources or determination of these seemingly pro-wildlife groups that are really anti-hunter groups. They may possess the resources to sue numerous states, and effectively stop wolf hunting. Just look at the mountain lion hunting fiasco in California.

No, we will need more than one man or woman to knock these anti-hunter groups silly, but I will certainly do my part.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

That Harry Reid has a "rider" to the budget bill and it's on Obama's desk is pure political b.s. and an urban myth. Congress adjourned without passing any budget bill before they left and there is no bill on Obama's desk. If Harry Reid got any donation for this, then the sportsmans' associations that made it got duped. Currently Congressman Simpson (I believe) from Idaho has draft legislation on his website that he hopes to introduce when congress reconvenes that would accomplish this goal.

quote:

Currently Congressman Simpson (I believe) from Idaho has draft legislation on his website that he hopes to introduce when congress reconvenes that would accomplish this goal.

Yes, Idaho's Cong. Simpson has drafted that legislation.

Don't know if he can get it passed but I, and most Idaho hunters, hope so.

L.W.

EB
i was in camp with the #1 lawyer for sportsman for fish and wildlife 2 weeks ago.
so the info came from the horses mouth so to speak.
i don't know where you got your info

Yale:

(Here we go again!(in my fight for wolves) What "industry" are you talking about? Hunting deer and bear in PA? -some distance from wolf country -in any direction. Are you a cattleman or sheepherder who has wolves after his stock? (If so, there are organizations that will repay you for losses) OR -and I ask this question seriously - are you listening to western outfitters who sell hunts to us Easterners -have you heard any real ranchers or sheepherders in this forum telling you how awful the wolves are? I spent nearly 20 years of my life in hunting in Ontario,twice a year and saw and listened to wolves -I never heard any Canadian local tell me how the wolves were wiping out deer,or moose. (Of course, the wolves enjoyed a feast some years and there were other years where they starved -it balances out always in the grand scheme of Nature (or the Lord depending on what you believe. Yes, I had wolves kill a very favorite dog from my hunting lodge (they lured him on to the ice one winter) -and I would have shot on sight any wolf I saw that Spring. However I love wolves,nonetheless -they are the ancestors of all dogs. It just happens that I don't think that the gray wolf can survive in the lower '48 because he is too small. Just for that reason alone. (Anyone who ever saw a northern or Canadian timber wolf never would mistake it for a German Shepherd)

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
It just happens that I don't think that the gray wolf can survive in the lower '48 because he is too small. Just for that reason alone.

Your kidding right? The wolves that were released in Yellowstone were one of the largest according to david Mech.

The largest Molly pack wolf weighed was 145 pounds if I remember right. Louis and Clark wrote about wolves in MT while they traveled through the area.

Nice try.

quote:

(If so, there are organizations that will repay you for losses)

They use to pay however, the organizations claim that they are all out of money and will pay no more. And Outfitters here out west are going out of buisness every year due to the wolves killing off our elk and Moose herds.

Steve

Ravenr,
It's a simple fact that congress adjorned without passing a budget bill (since it would be tied to what is going to happen to taxes next year and we all know where that stands). So if Reid's rider was to that bill, it doesn't even exist. Maybe there was a promise by Reid to do it, I don't know. I simply know there was no bill passed by either the house or the senate (it would have to constitutionally originate in the house) and there is no bill on Obama's desk.

EB
the way i understood the conversation it was
written and submitted as a rider.
maybe i misunderstood the bill it was attached to, could of been the military funding bill.
i wouldn't be blowing smoke "here"
there has been enough of that done by the feds.
the group i was with were very excited about it and don peay couldn't make the trip as he returned to DC to be on hand
reguardless,it is long overdue and shows a small ray of sunshine in the dark picture of whats happening to our wildlife here in the west
lets hope for the best

Leading Sportsman Blasts Montana Senators for Derailing Wolf Delisting

Wildlife conservation group says the wolf would already be exempted from the Endangered Species Act if it had not been for Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester.



By Bill Schneider, 10-07-10


The founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW), a multi-state conservation group that has been aggressively pushing for a congressional resolution to the wolf delisting controversy, claims Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Democrats, are not his allies.

Instead, he insists, both the Montana Senators worked behind the scenes to actually derail delisting efforts at the same time they were jointly introducing a bill to delist the wolf.

No, I’m not making it up.

Don Peay, SFW founder, recently returned from a seven-day “20-hour per day” lobbying effort in Washington, D.C. The goal of his trip was to have a bill introduced by Congressman Chet Edwards (D-TX) tacked as a rider onto the September 30 Continuing Resolution (CR), a common practice where Congress punts on passing a budget and instead extends the current level of spending to keep the federal government running.

He was in the Capitol City with three other prominent regional conservation leaders, Miles Moretti, Clint Bentley and Ted Lyon, and the group had a face-to-face meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about the rider.

“He told us he wanted to get something done,” Peay wrote in a blogpost, ‘but Leader Reid did NOT make a time commitment.”

“I don’t like to speak for others, but several prominent sportsmen had MAJOR discussions with Senators Baucus and Tester for WEEKS, about getting behind the Edwards bill,” Peay wrote. “Had the Senate passed it, due to Rules, the House had no choice but to accept the CR as written, no conference, no back and forth, etc. It would have been done.”

Peay called the Edwards bill “carefully researched” and written “by a very successful Texas trial attorney and strong democrat,” but HR. 6028 is very brief (one-page, 103-words). You can read it here, but this is the key section: “The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) shall not be treated as an endangered species or threatened species for purposes of this (Endangered Species) Act.”

The bill seems to apply to all wolf populations such as those in the Midwest and perhaps even wolf recovery efforts in the Southwest, and certainly the beginning populations in Oregon, Utah and Washington. It would not allow listing under the ESA in the future without another amendment to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

“In my opinion, had Baucus and Tester gotten behind the Edwards bill, and worked to get it on the Senate CR, Thursday night, wolves would have been off the ESA,” Peay wrote. ‘There was no official vote, but clearly had Senators Tester and Baucus wanted to get this done, it would have been done.”

Instead, Peay charged, “Baucus and Tester fought it tooth and nail.”

Both Baucus and Tester deny Peay’s interpretation of the events leading up the passage of the Continuing Resolution on September 30

“That’s 100% false.” Kate Downen, a spokeswoman for Senator Baucus, told NewWest.Net in an email in reference to Peay’s charges. “Max introduced a bill that would delist wolves in Montana and put management of wolves back under Montana’s control. While Max believes his bill is a common sense and viable solution to this issue, he’s open to looking at any plan that would put wolf management back in Montana’s hands.”

“This claim is absolutely false,” agreed Andrea Helling, spokeswoman for Senator Tester. “Jon didn’t derail Rep. Edwards’ House bill. It simply was never added to the Senate’s Continuing Resolution. Apparently some folks wanted Rep. Edwards’ bill to be included in a larger Senate bill as part of a backroom deal, and apparently, they’re eager to point fingers because they didn’t get what they wanted.”

Helling also said Senators Tester and Baucus did meet with a few other western senators last Tuesday (9-28) to discuss various wolf proposals. The meeting took place at 4:15 pm, two hours after the Senate invoked closure (voted to end debate) on the Continuing Resolution.

To attach Rep. Edwards’ wolf bill to the Continuing Resolution after cloture, she explained, the Senate would have needed unanimous consent. “There is no way Rep. Edwards’ bill, which exempts all wolves entirely from the purview of the Endangered Species Act, would have passed the Senate with unanimous consent.”

Early this week, Senators Baucus and Tester introduced their own wolf delisting bill, which is more moderate that Edwards’ bill. It calls for delisting as soon as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepts management plans written by Idaho and Montana and does not sweep up any other wolf populations. Under this bill, the wolf could be relisted if for some unforeseen reason, the population crashed.

After getting these denials, I asked Peay for more documentation, and I will update this article when I get any additional information.

I also asked Congressman Edwards’s office to comment on the charges, but I did not hear back from his press secretary.

*********************************************

i guess, there you have it.
sounds like we're back to square 1 concerning
common sense and the wolf.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

So, let's sum this up.

1. There is no bill sitting on President Obama's desk to be signed that will de-list the wolf from the Endangered Species Act.
2. The anecdotal and official numbers from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming show that the wolves introduced in 1995 and 1996 have put a huge dent in the elk and moose population in those three states.
3. The hunting "industry" is losing out, since non-resident hunters are not buying as many out of state licenses for a much more limited chance at elk and moose hunting in those three states.
4. Minnesota has wolves and one poster here says that the deer population is up, whereas another says that it is down.
5. Ontario, Canada has wolf hunting, whereas Idaho, Wyoming and Montana do not at present, so the comparison is pretty much irrelevant as to the effect of wolves on big game populations based upon an area where they are hunted versus not hunted.

Therefore, nothing that I have read posted here has changed the import of my debate topic: wolves are producing destructive competition to our pastime: big game hunting for elk, moose and deer in the lower 48 states.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Wolves have most certainly had an impact on elk and elk herds in Idaho. A blind man could tell the difference from 10 or 12 years ago.

wolves and liberal fish and game personal are at fault.....