Lawsuit: Timber sale threatens den where Oregon's wandering wolf has settled to

[bearpaw]

Lawsuit: Timber sale threatens den where Oregon's wandering wolf has settled to raise pups
 
By JEFF BARNARD - Associated Press June 19, 2014
 
GRANTS PASS, Oregon — A conservation group is challenging a national forest timber sale because it may be too close to the den where Oregon's famous wandering wolf, OR-7, is raising pups.
 
Oregon Wild filed the lawsuit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Medford against the U.S. Forest Service over the Bybee timber sale on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest in the Cascade Range of southwestern Oregon.
 
It asks a judge to order a closer examination of the harm logging may do not only to potential wilderness and spotted owls, but to wolf habitat as well.
 
Continued:
http://tinyurl.com/n3cuxjr

[AspenBud]

"But the timber industry, which supports the timber sale, said OR-7 and his family would be better served if the project goes ahead because it would reduce the risk of wildfire and increase the amount of food available to deer and elk, which wolves eat.

"Those who are defending the wolves ought to be thinking about what the wolves want," said Ann Forest Burns, vice present of the American Forest Resource Council, which represents timber companies that depend on federal timber. "No wolf chow, no wolves.""

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[rim_runner]

Once the pups are reasonably mobile the wolves usually move away from the den site and the pack is mobile until the next denning season. Even with young pups, the adults will carry them to another den site that’s more to their liking.

[finnman]

Here's the problem, if its not wolves, or owls or gophers its something else? Let the pups grow up and leave the den, they will either get run over, shot, die of disease or so on. In the mean time the Eco freaks will come up with some other rouse to try and impede this operation. There are bound to be more hoops to jump through than just these wolves.

[KFhunter]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool. 

[idahohuntr]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

[AspenBud]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.

[AspenBud]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

Wanting to stop logging shows just how little a lot of the extremists on the "pro wolf" side don't understand what they're playing with. They think habitat just magically grows and maintains itself if you leave it alone. That might be true with uncontrolled forest fires, but without them...

[KFhunter]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

[CAMPMEAT]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

\



Idaho and Oregon are two entirely different groups of peoples................

[idahohuntr]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

[KFhunter]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue.  I think it's closer to elite than not.  Maybe Shockey would yawn 

[idahohuntr]

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue.  I think it's closer to elite than not.  Maybe Shockey would yawn 

Where in the heck do you come off telling me I take any of my hunts for granted?? Or that I said anyone was undeserving?  Or that I look down on anyone whether they are disabled, overweight, or old? The wilderness is limited to mostly able bodied folks and that is just a fact of life...although my grandpa, the one whose horse trailer I borrow (own, now that he has passed away) was disabled and he made it into the wilderness.  But there aren't a lot of men like him...he lost one arm and most of the mobility in one leg in Normandy about 70 years ago...that didn't stop him...he was old and disabled and made it into the wilderness to hunt...but he is obviously an exception.  And I'm not looking down on folks who can't or don't want to put the effort into hunting wilderness areas, but I sure as heck am not going to agree with your assessment that hunting in a wilderness area is for the "elite"...my family is as blue collar as they get, and we only occasionally hunt wilderness areas...but the people I encounter hunting those areas are just flat hard workers...not "elitists". 

[bearpaw]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.

Not exactly true! I have a lot of family in WI/MN and most no longer go north to hunt because they all say there are too few deer. The last time one brother-in-law hunted northern MN he saw nothing but wolves from his favorite tree stand. Some quit hunting altogether, some have gone elsewhere in the state, none of them, not one of them still goes to northern MN/WI to hunt.

[bearpaw]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue.  I think it's closer to elite than not.  Maybe Shockey would yawn 

I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.

Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.