Yes, I know wolves are not big game but they do affect big game hunting so I thought I would pose a wolf question here. There was an AP dispatch I saw this morning on the internet (sorry, I'm not good enough to make it come up here) that said the US Government was changing rules about wolves. It seems that Idaho and Montana have presented "management plans" that Uncle Sam approves of. However Wyoming has not submitted an "aproved" plan. I almost laughed out loud reading that the Wyoming "plan" supposedly called for any wolves away from the near area of Yellowstone "to be shot on sight". {This old Easterner always loved that phrase}

I used to have very pronounced views about shooting wolves (as some posters with good memories may recall) I learned that I spoke out of ignorance as a number of Westerners educated me. Since I always have been a believer that "the man on the ground" knows best, I really would like to hear the views of Westerners in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming about this new development. Will it change anything in your view? It's apparent that the Wyoming game authorities and the US have decidedly different views about wolves. I happen to favor state's rights so I would like to hear from Wyoming posters.

Thanks.

I read in our local paper that Idaho and Montana would be Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall said that wolves will start being removed from the Federal protection starting in January 07. This is regardless of whether Wyoming has submitted a plan by then. This reagion would include all of Id, Mt, eastern wa and Or and a sliver of northern Ut. These states would have complete oversight of the wolves in 12 months.
http://www.idahostatejournal.com/articles/2006/12/20/ap-state-id/d8m45na80.txt

Can't wait

24mileboy:

I smiled on reading your footnote: " "Can't wait". Here's what I have trouble with as an Easterner. If wolves are preying on livestock of a rancher or farmer -then I totally support shooting them on sight. My problem is with anybody else shooting wolves. Yes, I have been educated by Westerners to understand that wolves can really cut into wild animal herds (like elk)-but isn't that a part of normal cyclical swings in Nature? In a severe winter, the wolves feast. In a mild winter, the wolves starve. (Here in the East, we talk about swings for ruffed grouse, squirrels and rabbits) I do support whatever the Westerners want because they are there and living with wolves. I just have this persistent notion that I don't want them to disappear. I also know that Westerners don't want wolves to disappear, either. Hopefully,it will be sorted out.

Gerry,
In the article and in Id and Mt plans for the wolves I think that we have to keep 15 packs of wolves for Idaho, out of the 60+packs we now have. Some people want total eradication of the wolves but I think that they need reduced instead.

I have been the "man on the ground" in two states. I spent 30+ years in N.MN. I saw the wolves multiply beyond what anyone in the Federal Gov. ever thought possible. If it wasn't for a strong vigilante group that activly thined the numbers it would be a lot worse that it is and has been..What is happening here is similar to Mn. except it is happening faster that it did up there. We need to control them, the feds have to do something and it sounds like it is going to happen in 2007. It took an all out effort for 100+ years to get rid of them I don't think anyone has to worry about the wolves disappearing from the west again the Feds, will not allow it.

Ah, brent and IV, more wolf stuff!

gerrys375 Go to page two of this Big Game Hunting forum. The most recent news was posted there.

Right now as it stands, the regional head of the USF&W has made a proposal, peace offering,caved in, to the WY G&F and the State of Wyoming, that is a nice compromise. In theory and only in words. Trophy Game in an area that is inhabited by 98% of the wolves, and preditor status outside of that area. It is an offer by the feds who will probabaly lose the impending lawsuit. I am sure thier proposal is full of loop holes as is any federal plan.

What ever will be will be, beyond my control, but I support the State of Wy and the Wy G&F for at least standing up to a dilusional,imbacileistic,tree hugging, misguided attempt at playing mother nature,poorly planned, hairbrained,retarded,envirofriendly,anti-hunting,anti-big game,illegal reintroduction plan!

Gentle Wolf Hunters: DO NOT count your chicks before they are hatched!
I just this hour heard, on the Montana PBS station, an interview with one of the "greens" and they are promising many and varied lawsuits (like they have done in Wyoming to stop the Wolf control there by that state!) here in Montana and in Idaho - AND I AM QUOTING HERE NOW from said bitch green - "we will initiate a flood of lawsuits to intentionally DELAY any Hunting of Wolves in Montana or Idaho"!
Like I have said for so long the lying, deception, omissions, delaying, hidden agendas, lawyering and greening of this situation is just now starting to roll over "us"!
Many more of our Elk and Big Game herds will suffer because of this "phenomenon"!
The various media here abouts did mention that the Wolves were FAR in excess of what was promised to be the maximum population though.
Surprised at hearing that publicly - I am!
In fact they mentioned that Idaho alone had 625 Wolves! And the numbers for Montana and Wyoming were 650 combined!
These numbers represent at least four (4) times what was originally promised as maximum.
On a more upbeat note - the local paper (its free so I read it - I am VERY proud of the fact that as an adult [42+ years now!] I have NEVER once bought or paid for a newspaper!) here in SW Montana, relayed that the USFWS killed four Wolves yesterday (December 19th) just west of my home (near Wisdom, Montana).
Seems these Wolves (near Wisdom) had been killing cattle (they have eaten most of the Elk and Moose thereabouts!) for some time now and would not quit!
I would have paid the U.S. Government or the State of Montana $350.00 - NO - make it $500.00, to shoot just ONE of these four miscreants!
BUT no!
That would be MURDER for a sportsman to shoot a Wolf and then take said Wolf to a local Taxidermist (instead of to the dump!) and pay him $2,000.00 to full size mount it!
And, I would buy my own gas and pay my own expenses to harvest said miscreant Wolf!
The cretins that run some of our governmental agencies have their heads so far up their green asses it sickens me!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuty
PS: Kudu56 you are so RIGHT ON in your attempt at describing the "idiots" that have dealt us this "shitty hand"!
"Imbacileistic" is very apropos!

Interesting.
I know one of the feds down there personally. He is not to be trusted. He is a "Greenie" bioliogist. He will not be happy until the "Balance of Nature" is returned. That means severe cycles in predator/prey relationships. That is Natures way.
Numbers of wolves are not as important as numbers of packs. From a study done in Alaska by Dr. Rolf Petersen, each pack will kill a large ungulate every 3 days or so. That means for each pack, there's a dead elk, deer, moose, cow or sheep every 3 days. That's approximately 120 dead ungulates each year, per pack.
From what I've seen, you will lose in court.

A trick the old timers in Alaska used when Brown Bears got outta hand....They gut shot everyone they saw. They live for days and die miles away from where they were shot. 22LR was the weapon of choice.
For wolves, the natives used a sharp bone from a seal, frozen inside a small piece of meat. Wolf eats meat, meat thaws, bone kills wolf from the inside. A piece of hacksaw blade is the modern sharp bone of choice.
I in no way condone any of the above methods. I'm just telling it like it was.

I have heard the same from other people about the USF&W biologists that are working the wolves. I thought it was bangs but not sure. Typical left wing,liberal that is gainfully employed at our expense to screw the majority!

quote:

Originally posted by TJ:
Interesting.
I know one of the feds down there personally. He is not to be trusted. He is a "Greenie" bioliogist. He will not be happy until the "Balance of Nature" is returned. That means severe cycles in predator/prey relationships. That is Natures way.

But their problem is understanding that 'nature' like that no longer exists. to truly have this balance of predator and prey would also mean that everything would have to go back to the way it used to be - no ranches, no livestock, no hunters, no polititians, no greenies, no people at all interfering. Are they ready to tell everyone in the state to move out? Tear down all the cities and roads and fences and remove all people and all their influences entirely, and then let nature sort it out (with ALL animals, not just the wolves).

Unless we can really return the entire west to the way it was several hundered years ago, which we can't, they are going to have to accept the fact that just our presence there has a profound effect on nature. Do they really think that plopping a big city in the mountains has no effect on the 'balance of nature'? Since we have upset that balance, we are also responsible for managing it and creating a new balance. That means we are going to have to manage the elk and mule deer and wolves, etc.

I'm all for states' rights. I wouldn't presume to tell a WY or ID resident how they should hunt or how many wolves they should have - that's up to them. I can't see why the feds need to get their hands in everything. The federal government should be there to protect the country (i.e. militarily) and regulate trade - not tell each state how many wolves they should have to support.

The only reason wolf is not "big game" is it has not been classified as such by F & G. If the populations are out of control, get a season on them and buy a tag. I think they would be interesting to hunt.

I want to hasten to say that I don't support any idea of lawsuits by anybody on the subject of wolves. (I happen to support the idea of "state's rights") As I said earlier I'll support whatever the Westerners want who are living "on the ground" with wolves. From your posts I think most Westerners seem to have the right approach. I am not surprised about your comments about "greenie" biologists in the US Fish & Wildlife Service. A good number of years ago I heard or read somewheres that the so called "environmental movement" had been encouraging its disciples to seek employment with the state and Federal game agencies. (to operate like a sort of "mole") At first I thought it was a wild "conspiracy" idea. I lived to learn that it was not -and reading current posts about such people being so influential is sad. The intermix (if that's the right word) between wolves and people is not a subject for "Bambi" followers to be allowed to have anything to do with - and it is the fault of legislators who allow these agencies too much power to make up the rules as they go along. (The excuse is that the agencies are the "experts" about fish and game. The problem is that some of the "experts" think their job is to shelter all wildlife from hunters - which, of course, it is not)

Don't forget the USF&W personnel that were involved in the lynx program from either oregon or washington. I don't remember which state, but it involved lies and treachery by state and federal employees.

Don't see what the big deal about managing wolf populations the same as other populations should be. Elk are not just ornaments of nature. They represent revenue from hunting, tourism, etc. States ought to be able to manage their wildlife populations. I'm not in favor of eradicating wolves but I'm sure not in favor of allowing them to eradicate elk or deer or whatnot.

The "natural" predator/prey cycle was disrupted a hundred years ago by man and with man's encroachment and population expansion it is not going back. The greenies and USFWS bios (who are just greenies in drag) forget that it was hunters and sportsmen who brought the herds of ungulates (primarily elk) back from the brink in the early 1900's. Sportsmen paid for the habitat and the policies and are directly responsible for the herds that exist (or existed until the wolves showed back up); so its pure bull.... for anyone, including the posters above to say that we really need the "natural" cycle of predator/prey dynamics to govern wolves in the western mountain states.

Kudu56: To "help" your memory a bit I would like to add these tidbits from the "Lynx scandal" out Washington and Oregon way!
In fact three "green" employees of the USFWS "decided" to FIND "shed hairs" from Lynx out in the forest wilds, in areas where the most damage could be done to human endeavours like recreation, Hunting, logging and etc!
Tragically for sportsmen the "shed hairs" were actually hairs from Lynx mounts (taxidermied specimens) AND from an old Lynx coat!
Why is this a tragedy - because it proves what we all know and have suspected for 25 years - the "govmint" types will stoop to any depth of deceit, obstruction and illegality to achieve their "green" agendas!
Why these three "green criminals" were not prosecuted for their individual actions and/or for conspiracy is beyond me!
Wait... I just answered my own quiry - they are GREENS and therefore exempt from any standard of professionalism, legal behavior, criminality or truthfullness!
We as sportsmen, Hunters and traditional valued citizens are up against a formidable, powerful, ruthless and deceitful enemy!
Make no fucking mistake about THAT!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Sorry I have missed all the fun for the last few days, I have been up north chasing mountain lions--- did see a set (pair) of wolf tracks in Stevens Co. (Washington).

I have nothing to add to this that I haven't rehashed before.

I do disagree with other "greenies" (If that is what I am classified as now for this conversation) because I think the wolf should be hunted.

But why -rehash old shit-- did someone new show up on the board while I was away?

Merry Cristmas Kudu, VarmintGuy and all of my other carnivore loving friends!! Here is the young tom from yesterday-- we treed him twice within 3 hours....



IV

Merry Christmas IV to you and your family.


My son got a hunter, a 175 Tom, last week in Utah.

Idaho Vandal: I am old enough to remember the wonderful Hunting for Mule Deer that used to be available in Okanogan, Ferry and Stevens counties of Washington state!
Of course there was a bounty on Cougars back then and they were kept in check thus allowing the Mule Deer to prosper!
Those days are gone!
Enough said there!
Now, I have to say thanks for posting the great picture of the Catamount!
Good for you and getting out there after em!
As far as nothing to add - how about YOU putting your college education to use and come up with a solution to the explosion of Wolves here in the Rocky Mountains! The Wolves that are eating our Elk, in many areas, at an alrming rate!
Or say you add something on how to deal with and rid the "guvmint" agencies of the "hidden agenda" types!
Or simply make an attempt at getting "the feds" to own up to and somehow rectify the fact that we now have more than 3 times the Wolves that they told us would be the point at which the 3 most harmed states could take action to control the Wolves! Thus also controlling the harm they are doing to our game herds.
My solution is and has been to build a fire under the useless greens (including the feds) and trying to hold them accountable for their lies and deceptions.
Tough to do but the more people that know about their misdeeds and deceptions the better - in my mind anyway.
This type, over populated Wolf horror, WILL be coming to Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico and eastern Montana soon enough!
The exploding Wolf population is the #1 threat to Elk in the western United States - period!
Come spring next year we will have 1,450 Wolves minimum!
By next fall they EACH will be eating the bio-mass equivalent of 1.8 Elk per month! Thats the bio-mass equivalent of 2,610 Elk per month!
Year round!
How long can our Elk herds prosper on that type growing predation?
Not long is my "guess"!
And human Hunters have been suffering for some time now in that we are loosing tags for and allotments of Elk to be harvested in several areas!
Nothing new my ass!
This problem is getting worse every day - thats new.
Our enemies are NOW being shown for what they are and have done, as well as what they are planning TO DO - thats new.
I got an offline E-mail from an interested party in which he asked many questions including "why do I listen to and watch PBS (NPR!)"?
My answer was simple and straight forward - not many traditional minded folks listen to PBS (NPR) and I long ago found that valuable intel could be gleaned from their utterances over the air waves. I could learn what the "greens" were up to without actually having to run in their circles and attend their meetings!
I have attended those "type" meetings in the past and they nauseate and infuriate me no end.
Still it is a good idea to keep abreast of what the obstructionist greens are up to and planning, for OUR futures!
Therefore Idaho Vandal I task you with attending at least one meeting of the "obstructionist greenies" (your choice as to which batch of greens you care to mingle with and observe) and reporting back with your intel!
I remember the first time I was tasked (at the time I was a "new face" on a police force) to attend and observe (count the number of attendees, try to memorize all topics discussed, memorize the faces of attendees for later identification, memorize any conspiritorial [criminal] discussions and memorize the parties involved etc etc etc).
This first "meeting" of mine happened at the infamous "Freeway Hall" in north Seattle, and the folks involved were the SDS, the Communist Workers Party of America with a few Black Panthers thrown in for good measure!
I came out of that meeting TREMBLING!
The murderous intent and anti-American intensity of those "people" back then scared this country boy right down to my toes!
Yeah I suggest you attend the next meeting of lets say the Idaho Wildlife Foundation! And let us know where they stand on Wolves killing your states game herds.
So thats what new - the feds now acknowledge publicly 1,250 Wolves (at least) where they promised only 325 mximum back in 1994!
The Wolves are still not being regulated by any state like was promised once the 325 Wolf population level was attained.
And the greens are now publicly "promising" more and overwhleming lawsuits in Montana and Idaho (like happened in Wyoming!) to DELAY ANY Hunting of Wolves by the citizenry of the affected states. This "hunting" was not EXACTLY promised by the feds but was "implied" by them as their way of avoiding expenses once the 325 Wolf level came about.
I think this topic is VERY important to Big Game Hunters to keep RIGHT up to date on!
If these posts trouble you I have a solution (and I didn't graduate from college!) - don't read them.
Stick your head in the sand and think happy thoughts if it makes you feel warmer and fuzzier?
Again thanks for the great photo of the Puma!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

In fact three "green" employees of the USFWS "decided" to FIND "shed hairs" from Lynx out in the forest wilds

Problem is that wasn't true, as multiple investigations proved.

And oddly enough, those biologists were disproving false results from the lab doing the DNA analysis which was identifying lynx hair that wasn't.

One of the reasons the Endangered Species Act has not been reformed is because so many of these stories turn out to be untrue. And the high ground is handed to the enviros.

They ran bangs out of Alaska for a reason. He is a lier and typical federal slug!

The feds are caving in! Not sure if it is good or bad, but killing wolves is good for damn sure!


CHEYENNE -- A landmark meeting at the State Capitol Monday may signal a turning point in the state-federal conflict over managing wolves in Wyoming.

Key federal and state officials -- including U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall -- spent more than an hour hashing out details of a new wolf management plan that could lead to changes in state law and eventually delisting of wolves in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

Todd Willins, deputy assistant secretary of the interior, said the federal government will move ahead with the delisting process in January with the assumption that Wyoming will accept some version of the proposal by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who led the discussions, voiced concern about who will pay for the plan and the inclusion of private land inside an expanded area where wolves would be managed as trophy game animals.
Freudenthal said he is willing to continue talks, but the state still intends to pursue its lawsuit over the federal rejection of Wyoming's wolf management plan.

“This is great progress from where we were,†Freudenthal said.

Federal and state officials have been discussing the new proposal in some circles for about six weeks. It includes expanding the area in northwest Wyoming where the state can manage wolves as trophy game, while allowing the state to manage them elsewhere as predators that can be shot on sight.

In July, the Fish and Wildlife Service cited the predator provision in the state wolf management plan as the primary reason for rejecting the document.

Mitch King, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Denver-based Mountain-Prairie Region, said Monday that an expanded trophy game area in Wyoming would make the predator provision palatable to federal biologists.

“Frankly, when they get out of this area on the map, we shoot them anyway,†King said.

King acknowledged that the timing of the release of the new plan was designed to coincide with the upcoming state legislative session, which convenes in January.

Indicating a willingness to consider the proposal Monday, lawmakers said legislation to modify Wyoming's wolf management plan could among the chief issues considered in the upcoming session.

“This needs to be one of the major things we work on this year in the Legislature,†said Rep. Doug Samuelson, R-Cheyenne, who attended the meeting.

Rep. Pat Childers, R-Cody, who has known about the new plan for more than a month as chairman of the House Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee, is already drafting a bill to change the state wolf management law, legislation he has called conceptual.

Wyoming's wolf management plan is part of state law and must be changed by the Legislature before the state can accept the new plan. The federal government already has approved plans by Idaho and Montana to manage wolves.

Freudenthal offered a bit of guidance to lawmakers Monday, suggesting that any new legislation require a return to the original law if the federal government backs out of the deal.

“I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under us a time or two,†Freudenthal said.

Paying for it

The new plan gives the Wyoming Game and Fish Department control over management of wolves outside Yellowstone National Park and requires the state to maintain at least seven packs outside Yellowstone.

If the plans is approved, Game and Fish Director Terry Cleveland said, his department would combine management of wolves and grizzly bears, at a cost of about $2 million a year.

The startup costs would drive the figure to $2.4 million the first year. About $300,000 would be used to compensate for lost livestock. Another $500,000 might be needed for putting tracking collars on the animals, Childers said.

Freudenthal asked if there was a way to raise the profile of the funding in Washington, D.C. Federal officials said they were resistant to make funding a provision of the delisting notice in the Federal Register.

King said it would largely be up to Congress and regional legislative delegates to push for the money. However, he said it's important to help Washington, D.C., politicians know that Wyoming, Montana and Idaho carry the national burden for the existence of gray wolves in the West, and that the states should be supported financially.

Enzi said the loss of Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee creates a new funding obstacle.

Eliminating packs

The proposed management plan would allow the state to reduce the number of wolf packs outside Yellowstone from the current 23, which could mean elimination of as many as 16 packs.

Among the tools that might be employed to aggressively manage the wolf population are hunting, trapping, harvest by Game and Fish and lethal take permits for landowners, Cleveland said.

If the Legislature caps the number of wolf packs at the minimum allowed by law -- seven -- Game and Fish would probably be forced to use aircraft snipers to reduce the numbers initially. Cleveland said he anticipates considerable public outcry if that is the case.

Reduced numbers of wolves will benefit the state's elk herds and issues at elk feedgrounds, Cleveland said.

“Other than that, it's going to be a pure headache for me,†he said.

Rep. Colin Simpson, R-Cody, asked if the Fish and Wildlife Service would be willing to do the initial paring down of wolf packs. King said it likely would not, largely because federal lawsuits and East Coast constituents would make it extremely difficult in political terms.

Reactions

The expanded trophy game area extends as far west as Cody and Meeteetse and as far south as Pinedale and Alpine. About 25 percent of the area is national park land. Roughly 8 percent is private land.

Freudenthal said he is interested in ways to reduce the amount of private land inside the area.

Simpson said one wolf pack has taken up residence only a mile from his family ranch, where children are sometimes present. Wolves have been known to roam even closer to children on private ranchland in other parts of northwest Wyoming.

Wyoming Stock Growers Association spokesman Jim Magagna said last week that ranchers run about 10,000 head of cattle and 4,000 head of sheep on private and U.S. Forest Service land inside the proposed trophy game area. His group opposes the compromise plan, although he said in a telephone interview Monday that he had not been briefed on the afternoon developments.

Enzi said he was happy about Monday's meeting.

“I'm just really pleased that folks are here talking about this prior to the legislative session,†he said. “We've talked about his several times before, and it's been either in the last couple of days of the session or just after it was over, and then it's a whole year away from finding a solution.â€

Abigail Dillen, a lawyer with Bozeman, Mont.-based Earthjustice that intervened on the side of the federal government in an earlier lawsuit with the state, said she has concerns that wolf advocates have not been part of the latest conversation about wolves.

She said it's critical that proposal assure that sound science is used to establish the trophy game area, though she has not been privy to details of the new plan.

“What matters to people who care about keeping wolves around is whether this plan is biologically sound. That's the question,†Dillen said. “It's about whether wolves will be protected adequately. If they are, it's a real step forward.â€

Wolves were reintroduced in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana a decade ago and are currently managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Their numbers have reached 1,200 in the three-state area, far more than intended under the federal endangered species program.

Glad to see a little progress is underway. We need to get through this hurtle, because the real lawsuits are going to fly when the delisting starts.

MG

quote:

because the real lawsuits are going to fly when the delisting starts.

Not just lawsuits, we'll see ballot measures in MT, WY and ID, all of whom allow that process to some extent.

Most likely on trapping, take away the most effective tools (leghold traps and snares) and wolf management is pretty much neutered.

And with the demographic changes that have occurred in MT and ID the results of a popular vote might not be pleasant.