wyoming wolves protected again

[Special T]

Fighting these guys requires being deliberate and calculating. Not acting like toddlers having a temper tantrum.

I agree with this statement 100 %

There are several areas where states rights are bing attacked. The EPA over water issues, ESA coving everything from spotted owls to wolves, our 2nd ammendment rights at the state level (read the article about the buckaroo single shot 22lr in MT). In my mind the only real question is What state has the balls to stand up to the Feds overreach into how a state manages its affairs? What Issue will be the test case to blaze the way for all other states to follow? (To retain thier ability to be oa soverine state, not a servent tot the feds)

[AspenBud]

Fighting these guys requires being deliberate and calculating. Not acting like toddlers having a temper tantrum.

I agree with this statement 100 %

There are several areas where states rights are bing attacked. The EPA over water issues, ESA coving everything from spotted owls to wolves, our 2nd ammendment rights at the state level (read the article about the buckaroo single shot 22lr in MT). In my mind the only real question is What state has the balls to stand up to the Feds overreach into how a state manages its affairs? What Issue will be the test case to blaze the way for all other states to follow? (To retain thier ability to be oa soverine state, not a servent tot the feds)

You're talking states rights issues when they have even made it into state politics and courts. You'd be wiser to try and find ways to stomp PETA and HSUS, they are the problem, they are the influence. Get them out of the picture and the landscape changes. Flipping the Fed the bird does not solve that problem. It was not the Fed that tried to stop Wyoming's wolf policies this time, it was those groups and their affiliates.

[pianoman9701]

My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself  )  I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming.

It will just be driven underground and be just another thing greenies will use against hunters when they can say "see what hunters do? They don't even follow the law and can't be trusted."

No good will come from the lack of any compromise on both sides.

Did you see the list of organizations in that letter? Those people aren't looking for compromise. Without exception, all of those groups are committed to halting ANY killing of wolves for any reason, and to halting all hunting, period. As far as hunters compromising is concerned, hunters haven't been given a real seat at any table in this, as highlighted by our own wolf plan. The extreme goals that were accepted for our plan clearly show no compromise and pander to the Defenders and other anti-hunting groups. I find it outrageous that you call for compromise when absolutely none has come from the other direction.

Do you not watch the news and see how they use wolf poaching as a tool to try and curtail, if not end, hunting as a whole? I find it outrageous that you defend the practice.

It's far easier to come back from low ungulate numbers (at the end of the day greenies want them too so there is a bottom) than it is from the bad press that poaching causes. I have no doubt it will happen in Wyoming, but I don't think it's something to celebrate or get a good laugh over since it means both sides have failed to make the other see their side and meet in the middle and the practice will be used against us.

Fighting these guys requires being deliberate and calculating. Not acting like toddlers having a temper tantrum.

It doesn't matter if there's poaching or not. Organization like the Defenders will use whatever they can to end hunting, true or not. The people of WY who are negatively affected by wolves are being given ultimatums while their livelihoods and families are endangered. This happening in WA, as well. People who have little stake in wildlife management are forcing decisions on the people who are directly affected. In one statement you talk about compromise, which is ridiculous because those groups the ones who will not compromise on anything which resembles wolf killing or their stances on hunting. The next statement, you say "Fighting these guys requires being deliberate and calculating. Not acting like toddlers having a temper tantrum." "Deliberate and calculating" are the antithesis of compromise. So, as has been the case in the past, you're all over the map on this discussion. Although I agree with your last statement, because it's so inconsistent with your prior statement, I can't figure out which is what you really believe. This is the same problem we have with members of the wildlife commission who belong to environmental activist groups. They tell us they're hunters and they're concerned for the future of hunting and then in their next breath, support or join groups like the Defenders whose concern for hunters is that they should lose their privileges forever. It's also the problem we have with groups who pretend to support wolves and in reality, only support an end to hunting using wolves as a vehicle to do so.

[idahohuntr]

Wyoming needs to go back, throw their wolf plan in the garbage can, get rid of this bravado bs of a "shoot on sight" policy which is nothing more than a politically popular bunch of bs that has no different effect on wolves and wolf management than if they had a more reasonable ID or MT type plan...but their (WY) plan is much harder to defend in court and that is why a species which is far from endangered is back on the ESA list.  They need to establish seasons, limits, harvest quotas, etc. that are very liberal, but which the state can successfully argue they are managing responsibly. 

Wolves are not endangered in Wyoming or any where in the west.  Cut and paste MT or ID wolf plans and be done with it    The fix is actually so simple that I think Wyoming is getting what they deserve for being so stupid and stubborn.  This is exactly what happens when you have these fringe-extremists getting their way on wolf plans 

[pianoman9701]

WY is the only state which has asserted its rights and should continue doing exactly what they are. They're going to be the one state out of all 4 which maintains control of those eaters. The rest, kowtowing to the Feds are or will be experiencing a huge sucking sound as they spend more and more $ trying to put out little fires here and there when, in fact, the whole state is burning. We spent $1/2M to kill one wolf a few weeks ago. I don't think WY spends that in a year.

[wolfbait]

This hurts WY's ability to legally manage wolves and the state will be forced to restructure it's wolf plan, so the wolf advocates think they won a huge victory. If possible, I think the court would have been wiser to give WY 6 months to change it's wolf plan or be relisted. Ultimately this action will likely have the same effect in WY as it did in Idaho when Malloy and wolf groups thought they closed wolf hunting.

I don't see this WY action having much impact on WA because WA will never propose WY's type of wolf plan anyway. Wolves are already being managed in WA because these packs keep eating livestock and then wolves get removed. Ranchers simply cannot afford for wolves to eat their livestock investments and rural people will not put up with unmanaged wolves forever. As the number of packs increase you can expect to see more wolf management. These wolves get into even more trouble than I anticipated in NE WA, there simply isn't room in NE WA for the number of wolves that are already here much less what would be here in another 6 years when they intend to delist if they were not managed.

You can expect to see these packs continue to get in trouble and so as packs increase we will have increased wolf management going on anyway even though the state hasn't delisted wolves. 

Once these wolf packs multiply into Puget Sound suburbs then wolf management will escalate further. 

WDFW is getting what they deserve with this wolf management issue, lots of headaches, wait till 6 years has passed, WDFW will be ready to delist. 

I don't think wolves in WA have even started to be be managed yet, unless you consider refusing to acknowledge the impacts and refusing to confirm BP's.  The few wolves WDFW took out do to livestock predation is nothing, their effort at management is a total joke to those who have wolves in their livestock, look at the the sheep rancher as a perfect example. My guess is this will be the new norm, instead of taking care of the wolves causing the problems, WDFW and crew will insist on the livestock being moved.

Look at where MT, ID and Wyoming were in six years, and then look at WA, the so called WDFW wolf recovery is a blatant joke and the rural people are the ones who are/will suffer along with the game herds.

I think the pass the buck crap will go on until the rural folks take a stand and tell WDFW to take a flying leap, which in my opinion isn't that far down the road.

[Special T]

My argument  reflects the difference between the root cause and the symptoms of the problem.  Wolves are a symptom not the root of the problem. In a perfect world should we just go after Peta and Hsus? Sure. The problem with that fight is that protest by lawsuit can be done by any group. Names and funding  can be changed but you still face the same issues.

WY does have a plan that was agreed to. IMO what they need to do is keep playing hardball so that when the Fed delist grey wolves they are not incumbered  by rules they agreed to under diress.  The Feds Slow play issues to thier advantage all the time. I think WY should take a play from thier own book. I dont think that the agreements ID and MT set up are really that benifical for those states. Agreeing to the framework of the DoW and other greenie group is a stratigic mistake, because mearly by accepting thier framework puts REAL management at a disadvantage.

[wolfbait]

My argument  reflects the difference between the root cause and the symptoms of the problem.  Wolves are a symptom not the root of the problem. In a perfect world should we just go after Peta and Hsus? Sure. The problem with that fight is that protest by lawsuit can be done by any group. Names and funding  can be changed but you still face the same issues.

WY does have a plan that was agreed to. IMO what they need to do is keep playing hardball so that when the Fed delist grey wolves they are not incumbered  by rules they agreed to under diress.  The Feds Slow play issues to thier advantage all the time. I think WY should take a play from thier own book. I dont think that the agreements ID and MT set up are really that benifical for those states. Agreeing to the framework of the DoW and other greenie group is a stratigic mistake, because mearly by accepting thier framework puts REAL management at a disadvantage.

  If Wyoming starts trying to appease the environmentalists and the corrupt USFFS where does it end? Wyoming has had two wolf plans passed by the USFWS, and now the environmentalist want to change it up again?

[denali]

Wyoming needs to go back, throw their wolf plan in the garbage can, get rid of this bravado bs of a "shoot on sight" policy which is nothing more than a politically popular bunch of bs that has no different effect on wolves and wolf management than if they had a more reasonable ID or MT type plan...but their (WY) plan is much harder to defend in court and that is why a species which is far from endangered is back on the ESA list.  They need to establish seasons, limits, harvest quotas, etc. that are very liberal, but which the state can successfully argue they are managing responsibly. 

Wolves are not endangered in Wyoming or any where in the west.  Cut and paste MT or ID wolf plans and be done with it    The fix is actually so simple that I think Wyoming is getting what they deserve for being so stupid and stubborn.  This is exactly what happens when you have these fringe-extremists getting their way on wolf plans 

The only reason ID and MT are not in court is because Congress delisted wolves with no judicial review.  Not because advocates find their wolf plans reasonable.

[jasnt]

It has already been proven even if every wolf ever seen be people was successfully shot and killed it would not affect growth at all. These wolf plans are a total joke!!!! It will not make any difference how many we shoot. Its just a power trip. They use this bs as a tool to say see your doing it wrong. They want control of the wolves and the land. Its a big pile of bs. Every state in the west could have a shoot on sight policy and still their numbers will grow.  Don't fall it to the pile.  There is no reason other than politics to have a wolf plan! NONE!

[AspenBud]

My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself  )  I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming.

It will just be driven underground and be just another thing greenies will use against hunters when they can say "see what hunters do? They don't even follow the law and can't be trusted."

No good will come from the lack of any compromise on both sides.

Did you see the list of organizations in that letter? Those people aren't looking for compromise. Without exception, all of those groups are committed to halting ANY killing of wolves for any reason, and to halting all hunting, period. As far as hunters compromising is concerned, hunters haven't been given a real seat at any table in this, as highlighted by our own wolf plan. The extreme goals that were accepted for our plan clearly show no compromise and pander to the Defenders and other anti-hunting groups. I find it outrageous that you call for compromise when absolutely none has come from the other direction.

Do you not watch the news and see how they use wolf poaching as a tool to try and curtail, if not end, hunting as a whole? I find it outrageous that you defend the practice.

It's far easier to come back from low ungulate numbers (at the end of the day greenies want them too so there is a bottom) than it is from the bad press that poaching causes. I have no doubt it will happen in Wyoming, but I don't think it's something to celebrate or get a good laugh over since it means both sides have failed to make the other see their side and meet in the middle and the practice will be used against us.

Fighting these guys requires being deliberate and calculating. Not acting like toddlers having a temper tantrum.

It doesn't matter if there's poaching or not. Organization like the Defenders will use whatever they can to end hunting, true or not. The people of WY who are negatively affected by wolves are being given ultimatums while their livelihoods and families are endangered. This happening in WA, as well. People who have little stake in wildlife management are forcing decisions on the people who are directly affected. In one statement you talk about compromise, which is ridiculous because those groups the ones who will not compromise on anything which resembles wolf killing or their stances on hunting. The next statement, you say "Fighting these guys requires being deliberate and calculating. Not acting like toddlers having a temper tantrum." "Deliberate and calculating" are the antithesis of compromise. So, as has been the case in the past, you're all over the map on this discussion. Although I agree with your last statement, because it's so inconsistent with your prior statement, I can't figure out which is what you really believe. This is the same problem we have with members of the wildlife commission who belong to environmental activist groups. They tell us they're hunters and they're concerned for the future of hunting and then in their next breath, support or join groups like the Defenders whose concern for hunters is that they should lose their privileges forever. It's also the problem we have with groups who pretend to support wolves and in reality, only support an end to hunting using wolves as a vehicle to do so.

Idaho fought for delisting and got it, Idaho opened a wolf season and they are managing wolves, Idaho does it's best to make sure they don't drop below the agreed upon minimum number of wolves needed to keep them from being relisted and they do their best to provide bucket loads of information to prove they are doing so. If that's not deliberate and calculating and a compromise I don't know what is.

Meanwhile Wyoming can't manage them legally at all anymore.

Who was smarter?

You're not going to get everything you want in this. Idaho recognized that, made smart moves, and got some control over the situation while the greenies, whether they see it or not, got to keep some wolves in the state.

[AspenBud]

My argument  reflects the difference between the root cause and the symptoms of the problem.  Wolves are a symptom not the root of the problem. In a perfect world should we just go after Peta and Hsus? Sure. The problem with that fight is that protest by lawsuit can be done by any group. Names and funding  can be changed but you still face the same issues.

WY does have a plan that was agreed to. IMO what they need to do is keep playing hardball so that when the Fed delist grey wolves they are not incumbered  by rules they agreed to under diress.  The Feds Slow play issues to thier advantage all the time. I think WY should take a play from thier own book. I dont think that the agreements ID and MT set up are really that benifical for those states. Agreeing to the framework of the DoW and other greenie group is a stratigic mistake, because mearly by accepting thier framework puts REAL management at a disadvantage.

Politicians follow public opinion and that trickles through everything. Stop the lobbying organizations from having so much influence, you stop the politics.

[idahohuntr]

Wyoming needs to go back, throw their wolf plan in the garbage can, get rid of this bravado bs of a "shoot on sight" policy which is nothing more than a politically popular bunch of bs that has no different effect on wolves and wolf management than if they had a more reasonable ID or MT type plan...but their (WY) plan is much harder to defend in court and that is why a species which is far from endangered is back on the ESA list.  They need to establish seasons, limits, harvest quotas, etc. that are very liberal, but which the state can successfully argue they are managing responsibly. 

Wolves are not endangered in Wyoming or any where in the west.  Cut and paste MT or ID wolf plans and be done with it    The fix is actually so simple that I think Wyoming is getting what they deserve for being so stupid and stubborn.  This is exactly what happens when you have these fringe-extremists getting their way on wolf plans 

The only reason ID and MT are not in court is because Congress delisted wolves with no judicial review.  Not because advocates find their wolf plans reasonable.

And why wasn't Wyoming included in that 2011 budger rider?  Oh thats right, the idiots at SFW/BGF got their way in WY and worked against the congressional action of Sen Jon Tester (MT) and Representative Simpson (ID) because it would negatively impact their (SFW/BGF) fundraising efforts.   

[pianoman9701]

WY will continue to assert its rights and tell the USFWS to pee up a rope. They're smarter by putting the needs of their citizens ahead of DC bureaucracy. You can tell a state what to do until you're lips turn blue. If they don't listen, there's little the feds can do but bluster.

[AspenBud]

WY will continue to assert its rights and tell the USFWS to pee up a rope. They're smarter by putting the needs of their citizens ahead of DC bureaucracy. You can tell a state what to do until you're lips turn blue. If they don't listen, there's little the feds can do but bluster.

They can cut off funds. Remember 55 miles per hour and highway funds?

Though honestly I don't know that wolves matter that much to DC in the grand scheme, that's the other side of the problem. Bigger fish to fry.