D.C. Court relists, Fuggers

Don't let that worry you.

How the hell can a judge from Washington D.C. know anything about our wolf situation? I guess when we're out of wildlife, those wolves will start eating themselves.

Last week I was working on a project I have going in Sheridan, saw a bumper sticker that said
"Real Men don't need Wolf Tags"

I thought that was great.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Lefforge:
How the hell can a judge from Washington D.C. know anything about our wolf situation? I guess when we're out of wildlife, those wolves will start eating themselves.

Yep, thank God DC is there to save us from ourselves.

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge temporarily restored federal protections to wolves in Wyoming on Tuesday in a victory for conservationists that is sure to draw criticism from ranchers and hunters who blame wolves for preying on livestock and big-game animals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in 2012 that wolves had successfully come back from the brink of extinction in Wyoming, and that the population of about 300 animals could be managed by the state, which established hunting seasons.

But conservation groups filed suit alleging federal wildlife managers violated provisions of the Endangered Species Act by approving a wolf management plan in Wyoming that allowed the animals to be shot on sight in most of the state and failed to ensure their survival.

In Tuesday's ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service to hand Wyoming authority based on non-binding promises by the state to maintain a certain number of wolves was "arbitrary and capricious" and needed revising.

But the judge also supported the finding by federal wildlife managers that wolves were no longer threatened with extinction in Wyoming.

(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman in Salmon, Idaho; Editing by Cynthia Johnston)

Wyoming wanted to be "right" instead of wanting to win like we did in Idaho and they did in Montana.

Sometimes the trick in life is to avoid getting what you deserve.

In 80% of the state wolves can be shot on sight with any weapon.
That's because 80% of the state is covered with ranches and farms FULL of livestock with no big game populations that will sustain wolf numbers.
The wolf hippies Can't and WON'T understand that.
Our game and fish KILL 200 wolves a year! and by the sounds of it will continue this practice to keep numbers in check.
Oh well, back to "self management"
Lets see those low bred liberal D.C. judges
do something about that. FUG em'

quote:

a victory for conservationists that is sure to draw criticism from ranchers and hunters

that is the quote i do not like. why can't we, as hunters, be conservationists in the eyes of the public?? we for damn sure do more for wildlife and habitat than any tree hugging organization, but we are the only ones that seem to know it.

Cooper: Because there is nothing polarizing or sensational if they don't spin it that way. Media coverage sold out long ago to sensation and dollars. They are "For Profit" companies. Don't forget that fact.

Now it is up to the people of Wyoming to get their wildlife officials moving with a proper conservation plan. Once that is in place and the lawsuit dust settles, the plan can be changed as needed. Idaho and Montana, while not perfect, have a fighting chance that Wyoming doesn't. No other way around it.

While it makes me feel better that the 3-S plan will be carried out by some, I can't condone it as an ethical hunter. Don't give the bastards more reasons and ammo to drive us out.

Jeremy

Might turn into the old shoot, shovel and shut-up.

quote:

Now it is up to the people of Wyoming to get their wildlife officials moving with a proper conservation plan.

And just what do you think is a "proper" plan?

"Proper" was the wrong word to use. I meant it in these terms: Whatever satisfies the judges ruling to get a hunt reinstated. I imagine it requires specified seasons with harvest and population objectives.

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but the anti's know how to play the game better than we seem to. The silent majority won't win without going through the courts.

Once a plan of any sort is in place and hunting is again allowed, you have the opportunity to advance your cause. Without that, shooting wolves is law breaking, and ultimately makes all hunters look bad.

Jeremy

I guess I really don't know what the wolf situation is in Indiana, but Minnesota is lousy with em. It is hard to realize, I think, for those who don't have wolves how large an impact they have. Our north woods have been cleaned out. It is rare to see deer, rabbits, or moose even in the state parks, but you hear wolves every night, seemingly in every direction. The grey fox are scarce and even the coyotes have gotten hard to find up north. It is easy to dismiss these observations with all of the other factors that affect an ecosystem, but when you are here for the winters, and the droughts, and the late springs and have an idea of normal and what to expect, observation and common sense make an accurate conclusion obvious. We are too far gone for any "acceptable" control method to be effective. Wolves learn. Hunting and trapping has already become difficult, and in a couple more seasons harvests will decline by liscenced hunters and trappers. It took poison the first time, because traps and guns couldn't keep up. Those people back then more or less lived outside and were un-restricted. Good luck.

Dogs, cats, sheep, calves, mice, kids, and the elderly.

Or anything else that scum can get hold of!

This is the Washington D.C. activist judge calling the shots.

If you read the news report a little more carefully you will see that the Judge made a very narrow ruling. Her only problem with the state/fed agreement was that Wyoming did not make a binding commitment to maintain a minimum wolf population.

465H&H

Need to vote her out of office !

quote:

Originally posted by twilli:
Need to vote her out of office !

Federal judges are appointed not elected.

Wy. wolves are only protected in D.C.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
If you read the news report a little more carefully you will see that the Judge made a very narrow ruling. Her only problem with the state/fed agreement was that Wyoming did not make a binding commitment to maintain a minimum wolf population.

465H&H

Gov. Matt Mead scrambled and appealed the ruling with a binding clause that should have satisfied the judge's "problem" about the original conservation plan. She would not change her ruling....

What does that tell you?

And her reason was?

465H&H

I still have a problem with the Canadian wolves being introduced under the ESA when the Minnesotan wolves are the same sub-species, same size and weight range as the Rocky Mountain wolves.

Sure seems like the states should be able to sue the Feds over the Feds failure to comply with the original introduction agreements. By this I mean the Feds never complied with the original agreed upon numbers to delist the wolves. The latest agreements the Feds have forced upon the states are pretty much greater numbers within each state than the original agreed upon numbers for the entire multi-state introduction area. Also, apparently the states succumbed to Fed pressure to accept the Canadian wolves vis-a-vis the Minnesotan wolves.

Otherwise I wonder why the states couldn't eradicate the introduced Canadian wolves as an "invasive introduced species" and direct the Feds to start again with the correct wolf sub-species if wolves are to be allowed within their borders.

I also wonder why some deep pocket pro-hunting conservation group couldn’t sue the Feds for violating the ESA by introducing the Canadian wolves into the “reintroduction area” rather than the Minnesotan wolves (same sub-species of wolf).

Edited for clarification.

If that statement is accurate, that seems like a sound argument to me. It certainly seems like a defendable stance to pursue.