Utah Senate Bill 36 calls for removal of all wolves that may enter the state.

[denali]

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/sbillint/sb0036.pdf

probably will not see the light of day but clearly Utah has seen what has gone on before and want no part it.

Line 42 -  The wolf is a predator and its presence in the state threatens the state's wildlife and ungulate populations, therefor, it is the policy of the state that the wolf shall be destroyed or removed from the state.

Not much lawyer speak there !

[washelkhntr]

 

[andrew_12gauge]

unfortunately for utah they are still on the federal endangered species list there, so this wont really fly if the feds want to get involved

[carpsniperg2]

i am glad the utah people have there heads screwed on right compared to the the ones around here. i am sure it will not pass but it would be very cool i would be happy to help them.

[Shootmoore]

unfortunately for utah they are still on the federal endangered species list there, so this wont really fly if the feds want to get involved

If it passes and Utah enforces it could be interesting to see the legal battle of states rights vs fedral rights.

Shootmoore

[andrew_12gauge]

yea it would be interesting but i think the feds would be forced to get involved because if one single wolf got shot the bunny huggers would be all over the feds to get involved, pretty much though they have the same idea as wyoming, and really once the wolves show up thats when the shooting should start because they wont be able to control wolf populations by hunting anyway

[mulehunter]

I heard North Utah the BEST RANCHER HUNTER in AMERICAN. No one Fk with them! I am thinking about Moving there!

Mulehunter 

[wolfbait]

i am glad the utah people have there heads screwed on right compared to the the ones around here. i am sure it will not pass but it would be very cool i would be happy to help them.

Wyoming is the only state that has this wolf fkp figured out, they didn't jump at the carrot that Idaho and Montana did, which was turning the wolf into a big game animal. Instead Wyoming kept the wolf as a predator in part of their state. The feds are doing what ever the environmentalist tell them to. That being said who do you really think is running the wolf program??

[bowhunterforever]

  For utah!

[wolfbait]

i am glad the utah people have there heads screwed on right compared to the the ones around here. i am sure it will not pass but it would be very cool i would be happy to help them.

Wyoming is the only state that has this wolf fkp figured out, they didn't jump at the carrot that Idaho and Montana did, which was turning the wolf into a big game animal. Instead Wyoming kept the wolf as a predator in part of their state. The feds are doing what ever the environmentalist tell them to. That being said who do you really think is running the wolf program??

If Utah sticks to the Wyoming plan they may have a chance, other wise they will be royally screwed just like the rest of you!!!  Bottom line the wolves are Predators and should be shot on site.

[bowhuntin]

unfortunately for utah they are still on the federal endangered species list there, so this wont really fly if the feds want to get involved

Not entirely true, Andrew.

Wolves will lose their ESA status in all of Idaho and Montana and in portions of eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah.

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005125508

[boneaddict]

Utah ralizes how much money they are making off their elk and big Muleys.  SMART!

[bonkellekter]

Utah ralizes how much money they are making off their elk and big Muleys.  SMART!

 

[WDFW-SUX]

Utah gets it. Washington does not.

[WAcoyotehunter]

i am glad the utah people have there heads screwed on right compared to the the ones around here. i am sure it will not pass but it would be very cool i would be happy to help them.

Wyoming is the only state that has this wolf fkp figured out, they didn't jump at the carrot that Idaho and Montana did, which was turning the wolf into a big game animal. Instead Wyoming kept the wolf as a predator in part of their state. The feds are doing what ever the environmentalist tell them to. That being said who do you really think is running the wolf program??

That's the reason wolves are very likely to be back on the list...WY needs to pull their head out and come up with a plan thoughtful plan.  Killing all the wolves does not exactly count as a recovey plan.

[andrew_12gauge]

unfortunately for utah they are still on the federal endangered species list there, so this wont really fly if the feds want to get involved

Not entirely true, Andrew.

Wolves will lose their ESA status in all of Idaho and Montana and in portions of eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah.

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005125508

hmm interesting i wonder what portions of northern utah are delisted

[Shootmoore]

i am glad the utah people have there heads screwed on right compared to the the ones around here. i am sure it will not pass but it would be very cool i would be happy to help them.

Wyoming is the only state that has this wolf fkp figured out, they didn't jump at the carrot that Idaho and Montana did, which was turning the wolf into a big game animal. Instead Wyoming kept the wolf as a predator in part of their state. The feds are doing what ever the environmentalist tell them to. That being said who do you really think is running the wolf program??

That's the reason wolves are very likely to be back on the list...WY needs to pull their head out and come up with a plan thoughtful plan.  Killing all the wolves does not exactly count as a recovey plan.

They have a plan, and a good one in my opinion.  Its just not a plan that the greenies in the US F&W service and the evirosocialists like.  Wyoming appears more than willing to let the wolves live in yellowstone but they do not want them in the rest of wyoming.  I see absolutly nothing wrong with that stance.  If the people of wyoming do not want wolves the people of wyoming should not be forced to have wolves off of the National park grounds.  The fedral government is using the ESA to control and dictate to the states on governence of there wildlife without compensation and overstepping there bounds on this issue.

Shootmoore

[WAcoyotehunter]

without getting too deep in the weeds with regard to ESA, the problem with limiting wolves to that particualar area is that 'recovery' is not at all possible.  ESA requires wolves to inhabit much of thier range.

I agree with regional management, and having areas that are not 'wolf friendly'.  But WY will have to do better than that before wolves can be delisted and legally managed there.  Their plan is going to get legal wolf hunting and management in MT and ID stopped.  Their plan (and attitude about it in general) is the one error that is going to be a roadblock to wolf management.

[Shootmoore]

without getting too deep in the weeds with regard to ESA, the problem with limiting wolves to that particualar area is that 'recovery' is not at all possible.  ESA requires wolves to inhabit much of thier range.

I agree with regional management, and having areas that are not 'wolf friendly'.  But WY will have to do better than that before wolves can be delisted and legally managed there.  Their plan is going to get legal wolf hunting and management in MT and ID stopped.  Their plan (and attitude about it in general) is the one error that is going to be a roadblock to wolf management.

We of course will not agree on this.  But in my opinion if the ESA does not work for the states then perhaps it is the ESA that should be changed instead of the States rights being bent to fit the Federal.  I think the wolf issue goes much deeper into our Republic and the overstepping of the Fed in governence of the states.  My opinion.

Shootmoore

[WAcoyotehunter]

I tend to agree that the ESA trumping state rights is not always the best way.  My concern would be some states lack (or perceived lack) of interest in wildlife or in sustainable natural resource management.  Once these things are gone (species in general, not just wolves) they don't come back. 

I don't know the answer to this, but were there states that opposed bald eagle recovery?  I know ranchers that certainly did.  To me (and MOST of the country) eagle recovery is a great success story.  I'm not sure it would have been possible if left solely to state recovery efforts 

Should wildlife be managed to fit public opinion?  Or should the best available science determine management?     The goal of course should be to create sustainable populations of whatever species we're managing.

[mountainman1]

Utah will never get away with that, killing all wolves that enter the state The USFW and the enviros will see to that! It happened in Montana, Idaho,Wyoming, and here in or good old Washington State. People want to pay to see them wolves running free and killing at will . They don't want to see us hunter kill any of there animals. Someday we the hunters will be on the endangered list. Utah will get there wolves!

[wolfbait]

I tend to agree that the ESA trumping state rights is not always the best way.  My concern would be some states lack (or perceived lack) of interest in wildlife or in sustainable natural resource management.  Once these things are gone (species in general, not just wolves) they don't come back.  

I don't know the answer to this, but were there states that opposed bald eagle recovery?  I know ranchers that certainly did.  To me (and MOST of the country) eagle recovery is a great success story.  I'm not sure it would have been possible if left solely to state recovery efforts  

Should wildlife be managed to fit public opinion?  Or should the best available science determine management?    The goal of course should be to create sustainable populations of whatever species we're managing.

(I tend to agree that the ESA trumping state rights is not always the best way.  My concern would be some states lack (or perceived lack) of interest in wildlife or in sustainable natural resource management.  Once these things are gone (species in general, not just wolves) they don't come back.)

The USFWS and Environmentalists are using the ESA in a WAY it was never intend to be used. Not only that but the USFWS have broken several laws within the ESA importing the Canadian wolves. (Other states and wildlife management) The main issue with these wolves is the total lack of management. The wolves have done more damage to the wildlife than anything since game management begain many years ago. Infact these wolves would have never been able to be released if the game herds had not been managed so well.


(To me (and MOST of the country) eagle recovery is a great success story.  I'm not sure it would have been possible if left solely to state recovery efforts   Should wildlife be managed to fit public opinion?  Or should the best available science determine management?    The goal of course should be to create sustainable populations of whatever species we're managing.)

I don't think the Bald eagle is your best choice for your argument, I have never heard of a bald eagle pulling down an 800 pound cow, maybe the eagles are bigger where you live. It seems to me that there is only one species being managed and that is the wolf. If the big game herds were being managed correctly than the wolves would never have been allowed to grow to the extent that they have. Single species management does not work, species management needs to be done as a whole.

Wyomings first wolf plan was passed by the USFWS, the environmentallists are the ones who didn't like it. So who's in charge? In my opinion Wyoming has the right wolf plan I only wish the other states would have followed in Wyoming footsteps instead of cow-towing to the crooked ways of the USFWS. Ed Bangs said that the Canadian wolves did not have to be recovered in every state. Therefore if Utah prefirs to opted out, it should be their choice. After all there is no shortage of these wolves, and some state would prefer to have more than just wolves.

[Axle]

Give the feds the finger and  the wolves!

[wolfbait]

I don't know the answer to this, but were there states that opposed bald eagle recovery?  I know ranchers that certainly did.  To me (and MOST of the country) eagle recovery is a great success story.  I'm not sure it would have been possible if left solely to state recovery efforts 

Additionally, the problem that fanned the contention with bald eagle recovery was the trespassing and restrictions for private land use. Anywhere eagles were flying and biologists surmised that they were looking for trees to nest, landowners were restricted from use of that portion of their own land as long as eagles were present. This is a part of the same problem with wolf use/denning, etc. It was not that people objected to the bald eagles, but to the taking of private lands.

[Shootmoore]

I don't know the answer to this, but were there states that opposed bald eagle recovery?  I know ranchers that certainly did.  To me (and MOST of the country) eagle recovery is a great success story.  I'm not sure it would have been possible if left solely to state recovery efforts 

Additionally, the problem that fanned the contention with bald eagle recovery was the trespassing and restrictions for private land use. Anywhere eagles were flying and biologists surmised that they were looking for trees to nest, landowners were restricted from use of that portion of their own land as long as eagles were present. This is a part of the same problem with wolf use/denning, etc. It was not that people objected to the bald eagles, but to the taking of private lands.

This is a good point right here.  Instead of working with private land owners and other interest groups the ESA is used like a 40 pound sledge by the USFWS and Environmental Groups.  Example one, the Northern Spotted Owl was used like a 40 pound sledge, using selective best science to gut the logging industry.  Gut small rural communites who relied on logging to support the communities.  Instead of using "best science" to find ways to work within the system they just start swinging.  They are now planning on killing large numbers of Barred Owls to protect Spotted Owls ?  Another example of swinging the sledge in the interest of one species at the detriment of another.

Example #2  Wild Salmon and Steelhead.  Closing of rivers and streams, mandates to private landowners in what could be done in "wetland" area's.  Best Science?  Like closing down the Methow river to protect "Wild stock"?  There science fails to mention that there is no true wild stock on the Methow river.  There was an irrigation damn on Methow river for if I remember correctly 14 years with no fish ladder.  Effectively ending the salmon and steelhead runs on that river.  Carson Stock hatchery fish were used to replace the run on the Methow River.  Now these Carson Stock Hatchery fish are claimed to be native and used to control irrigation, shoreline and fishing on the river.  Best Science or Selective Science.

Now the wolf which is being introduced and protected and everything else be damned.  While they still cling to "best science" such as they only kill the sick, old and injured.  17000-19000 elk on the YNP on introduction, now down to 6800.  Wow there was a lot of sick and injured elk on the YNP.

How hard and how long did it take to build back the Bison herds on the YNP?  Now the wolf experts are saying that the wolves will just need to learn to hunt bison because the elk numbers are so low now.  One species at the expense of all others?  The wolf can make for a healthy herd I believe, the problem I see is that the wolf will be used to reduce the elk and deer populations to a point where it will not be sustainable for humans to hunt those herds.  Therefore no more hunting for you and I.

Private land owners can not protect there private property, if the wolves attack your dog, you must not protect it.  If you do you are looking at fines and jailtime far greater than if you assault another human being.  40 pound sledge anyone?


Shootmoore

[wolfbait]

I tend to agree that the ESA trumping state rights is not always the best way.  My concern would be some states lack (or perceived lack) of interest in wildlife or in sustainable natural resource management.  Once these things are gone (species in general, not just wolves) they don't come back. 

I don't know the answer to this, but were there states that opposed bald eagle recovery?  I know ranchers that certainly did.  To me (and MOST of the country) eagle recovery is a great success story.  I'm not sure it would have been possible if left solely to state recovery efforts 

Should wildlife be managed to fit public opinion?  Or should the best available science determine management?     The goal of course should be to create sustainable populations of whatever species we're managing.

(without getting too deep in the weeds with regard to ESA, the problem with limiting wolves to that particualar area is that 'recovery' is not at all possible.  ESA requires wolves to inhabit much of thier range.)

 According to you, the wolves in Washington migrated from Idaho, Montana and British Columbia, So with that in mind, it would appear that these wolves can recover in any area and that they don't need to be over populated in one area. The introduction of wolves was meant to be in the YNP, the USFWS dumped them in Idaho just to further their goals without regard to the detrimental impact on other wildlife and people. At that time, there was no mentioning of wolves having to live in all parts of Wyoming. It seems the USFWS takes just what laws out of the ESA they want, while breaking others to assert their political needs. The Wyoming plan is a good example of the USFWS playing politics and power tripping--it has nothing to do with what the wolves need to recover. As time goes on this has become quite evident, once again the USWFS are making total fools of themselves.

 (I agree with regional management, and having areas that are not 'wolf friendly'.  But WY will have to do better than that before wolves can be delisted and legally managed there.  Their plan is going to get legal wolf hunting and management in MT and ID stopped.  Their plan (and attitude about it in general) is the one error that is going to be a roadblock to wolf management.)

(Areas that are not wolf friendly)

Perhaps like down town Seattle or Spokane? The wolves, being wolves and doing what wolves do, are making a bad name for themselves because there is no effective management. As time goes on it will get worse. The people in charge of wolf management, whether it be the USFWS or WDFW have ruined and will continue ruining any chance of wise management practices for the wolf. I don't think you quite understand how many people are fed up with these wolves and especially now with the parasite problems popping up. Regardless of what the USWFS wants, there will be wolf hunting. I really doubt the USFWS would enjoy explaining how they will prosecute whole communities. I'm quite sure they wouldn't want their crooked dealings going public in a big way. 60 minutes would have a ball shuffling through the crooked dealings that involved the wolf introduction. If you doubt what I am saying, I suggest you go visit some folks in Idaho who have had to deal with these wolves and explain to them your theory.

[mountainman1]

I always wanted to share a 55 gallon drum full of rattle snakes with that little town called Seattle, I think the rattler is indangered over there and they would just have to let them take their course, kinda like the timber wolf on the east side of the mountains Utah needs some wolves but they can't have ours because we need more here for the Seattle and Tacoma area of the state and some for the Olympic, Oh that's right there is a wolf or two there already If Utah can keep out the wolves maybe they could help out down or the Mexican border with the drug runners

[Little Dave]

i wonder what portions of northern utah are delisted

Not much of the state, just the northern Wasatch.  North of 80, east of 84.

[Shootmoore]

I heard Utah might pick up a fleet of these to help enforce this legislation 

Shootmoore

[wolfbait]

Subject: FW: Newspaper
 
The enclosed article appeared today in the Twin Falls Times News - its is a reprint from the Washington Post
The author Jamie Rappaport is a former Director for the USFWS Service (1997 – 2001) a position for which she is obviously proud and using to bolster
her credentials in her efforts to justify her pathetic stance on wolves.  She is currently A VP for Defenders of Wildlife and couldn’t be more out of touch.
 
The views espoused by this lady are a sad commentary, and a sad commentary for the type of people attracted to the USFW Service.  There are many, many others like her
in the USFWS that have infiltrated the rank and file of this agency, which was supposedly was established to look out for the well-being of the wilderness and of all Wildlife.
 
Considering the recent developments about the massive spread of disease for which these “re-introduced” wolves are responsible, and the irreversible harm they are inflicting on other wildlife and other species - this organization, this USFWS is likely responsible for the single biggest environmental catastrophe facing the West in recent history.  This organization was solely responsible for the justification and implementation of the wolf program.  They found willing partners in our own States fish and game departments and together they are responsible for creating this unabated ecological disaster.  The USFWS no longer serves or cares about its fiduciary responsibility to its constituents, and has been relegated to nothing more than a puppet organization and facade to further the agenda of the extreme, self serving environmentalist groups like Defenders of Wildlife.
 
It’s time for all Sportsmans Groups to rise up and voice their opposition to this insane, out of control organization.  Its time for all States to ban together and sue for
enforcement of their constitutionally protected 9th and 10th amendment rights, and for exclusive control and management of the resources and wildlife within each states boarders’.
 
The USFWS needs the same wake-up call that the electorate in Massachusetts delivered to the proponents of the out of control government sponsored health care initiative.
Its time that the USFWS, this bumbling, misguided, bureaucratic quagmire of a government agency be disbanded.   
 
Tony Mayer
SaveElk.com
IdahoForWildlife.com