Post by: Bigshooter on September 23, 2014, 03:48:08 PM
Post by: jasnt on September 23, 2014, 04:09:47 PM
Post by: actionshooter on September 23, 2014, 04:29:47 PM
Post by: AspenBud on September 23, 2014, 04:33:49 PM
"Roughly 5,500 wolves currently live in the continental United States"
Now argue that all you want but it's not hard to see how some judge who has to make a decision based on numbers provided by bio's could come to this conclusion. It's not like coyotes where there are an estimated 50,000 in the state of Washington alone.
Idaho needs to be very very careful.
Post by: jasnt on September 23, 2014, 05:08:46 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 23, 2014, 05:15:13 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 23, 2014, 07:37:07 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 23, 2014, 07:42:01 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: HunterStrait on September 23, 2014, 07:43:25 PM
:mor:
Post by: Special T on September 23, 2014, 07:44:13 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 23, 2014, 07:48:20 PM
If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.
:yeah:
Post by: WA hunter14 on September 23, 2014, 07:55:45 PM
If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.
agreed 100% but also agree that it doesnt really matter it wont effect the wolves at all, to really get a handle on the wolf population they would have to poisen and shoot from planes on a regular basis
Post by: denali on September 23, 2014, 07:59:02 PM
Anybody that thinks delisting in WA will be followed by a hunting season, think again.
Post by: jasnt on September 23, 2014, 08:09:00 PM
well the silver lining is that a large canids with a pulse will be wearing a collar.... and advocates HATE collars.
Anybody that thinks delisting in WA will be followed by a hunting season, think again.
it will be a smaller fine if caught ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on September 23, 2014, 08:13:06 PM
If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.It will significantly reduce wolf harvest in Wyoming this year. Wolves are tough to kill...the only way states harvest 100 or 200 or 300 is if they have tens of thousands of deer/elk hunters out harvesting wolves incidentally to their deer/elk hunts. The majority of these hunters will not poach a federally protected species...way too risky for way too little benefit. Ranchers will still kill some I'm sure...but it will be very few relative to what hunters would take.
Post by: Special T on September 23, 2014, 08:15:19 PM
If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.
agreed 100% but also agree that it doesnt really matter it wont effect the wolves at all, to really get a handle on the wolf population they would have to poisen and shoot from planes on a regular basis
While i only know a couple of people from that state, I would think that how WY will react will not be comparable to ID. If ID would not prosecute people for shooting wolves do you think WY will?
I would imagine it will just be understood that "other" methods of control will also happen and just not advertised or talked about.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 23, 2014, 08:25:41 PM
It won't be Wyoming's decision to prosecute. It will be a federal issue since it is a federally protected species.If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.
agreed 100% but also agree that it doesnt really matter it wont effect the wolves at all, to really get a handle on the wolf population they would have to poisen and shoot from planes on a regular basis
While i only know a couple of people from that state, I would think that how WY will react will not be comparable to ID. If ID would not prosecute people for shooting wolves do you think WY will?
I would imagine it will just be understood that "other" methods of control will also happen and just not advertised or talked about.
Post by: jasnt on September 23, 2014, 09:08:12 PM
It won't be Wyoming's decision to prosecute. It will be a federal issue since it is a federally protected species.If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.
agreed 100% but also agree that it doesnt really matter it wont effect the wolves at all, to really get a handle on the wolf population they would have to poisen and shoot from planes on a regular basis
While i only know a couple of people from that state, I would think that how WY will react will not be comparable to ID. If ID would not prosecute people for shooting wolves do you think WY will?
I would imagine it will just be understood that "other" methods of control will also happen and just not advertised or talked about.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently proposing to remove Endangered Species Act protection for most gray wolves across the United States, a proposal that the groups strongly oppose; a final decision could be made later this year.
this could change alot!!!
Post by: Special T on September 23, 2014, 09:32:23 PM
It won't be Wyoming's decision to prosecute. It will be a federal issue since it is a federally protected species.If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.
agreed 100% but also agree that it doesnt really matter it wont effect the wolves at all, to really get a handle on the wolf population they would have to poisen and shoot from planes on a regular basis
While i only know a couple of people from that state, I would think that how WY will react will not be comparable to ID. If ID would not prosecute people for shooting wolves do you think WY will?
I would imagine it will just be understood that "other" methods of control will also happen and just not advertised or talked about.
True however WY could direct its Leo's to turn a blind eye similar to how ID did.
If a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to see it, did it really fall?
Post by: AspenBud on September 24, 2014, 06:22:52 AM
If you think this changes how people in Wyoming will act your kidding yourself. Its the cowboy state and arguably the most red state there is.It will significantly reduce wolf harvest in Wyoming this year. Wolves are tough to kill...the only way states harvest 100 or 200 or 300 is if they have tens of thousands of deer/elk hunters out harvesting wolves incidentally to their deer/elk hunts. The majority of these hunters will not poach a federally protected species...way too risky for way too little benefit. Ranchers will still kill some I'm sure...but it will be very few relative to what hunters would take.
It will be the trapping side that it hurts.
Post by: rtspring on September 24, 2014, 06:31:23 AM
I bet not...
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 06:52:15 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 06:59:10 AM
Post by: AspenBud on September 24, 2014, 07:04:02 AM
My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself :chuckle: ) I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming. 8)
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.
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2014, 07:13:29 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 07:21:23 AM
My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself :chuckle: ) I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming. 8)
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.
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2014, 07:23:05 AM
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. :chuckle:
Once these wolf packs multiply into Puget Sound suburbs then wolf management will escalate further. :chuckle:
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. :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 07:28:47 AM
Post by: jasnt on September 24, 2014, 07:32:20 AM
:yeah:My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself :chuckle: ) I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming. 8)
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.
Post by: AspenBud on September 24, 2014, 09:09:36 AM
My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself :chuckle: ) I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming. 8)
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.
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2014, 09:17:11 AM
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)
Post by: AspenBud on September 24, 2014, 09:30:11 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 09:40:48 AM
My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself :chuckle: ) I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming. 8)
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 09:58:42 AM
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 :bash: 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 :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 10:03:31 AM
Post by: wolfbait on September 24, 2014, 10:03:48 AM
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. :chuckle:
Once these wolf packs multiply into Puget Sound suburbs then wolf management will escalate further. :chuckle:
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. :chuckle:
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.
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2014, 10:06:45 AM
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.
Post by: wolfbait on September 24, 2014, 10:09:51 AM
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.
:yeah: 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?
Post by: denali on September 24, 2014, 10:12:40 AM
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 :bash: 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 :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
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.
Post by: jasnt on September 24, 2014, 10:15:21 AM
Post by: AspenBud on September 24, 2014, 10:16:39 AM
My first thoughts when I read the subject title was the same thoughts as RT (that's scary in itself :chuckle: ) I am not sure they were or ever will be protected in Wyoming. 8)
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.
Post by: AspenBud on September 24, 2014, 10:20:43 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 10:26:59 AM
And why wasn't Wyoming included in that 2011 budger rider? :chuckle: :chuckle: 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. :bash: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 :bash: 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 :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 10:30:52 AM
Post by: AspenBud on September 24, 2014, 10:36:55 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 10:47:02 AM
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.USFWS does not oppose the current WY plan, its the environmental groups suing and winning. Folks who think this is a state v. fed issue are ignorant on the subject.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
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.USFWS does not oppose the current WY plan, its the environmental groups suing and winning. Folks who think this is a state v. fed issue are ignorant on the subject.
The USFWS will be required to try to uphold the court's decisions on wildlife management, regardless of the approved plan. Whether or not they get cooperation from the State of WY is another story altogether.
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 12:10:33 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 12:22:52 PM
and some of you guys wonder why a redneck takes it into his own hands and deals with an issue at hand, just like duct tape and bailing wire. He isn't on the dole, he takes care of the important things first because no government is going to do it for him. Go figure.
I don't wonder, Bone. And were I a rancher or someone whose livelihood was negatively affected/impacted by wolves, my take on poaching them would be entirely different. I'm not sure I'd be mailing the pelts to Canada, but I probably wouldn't sit on my hands while they ate my income, either.
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2014, 01:41:38 PM
As we are finding out DoW is backing away from its financial compensation of livestock kills (to ranchers). Since the budgets of most game departments are shrinking how much "managment" do youthink is going to happen. There is a HUGE gap between the reality and the words being spewed.
Since hunting seasons and SSS cannot have a huge impact on current wolf numbers, Why does the Greenies fight so hard against it? Because it is a tool that they can use to disrupt hunting, and the other things they disagree with. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on September 24, 2014, 04:26:25 PM
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.USFWS does not oppose the current WY plan, its the environmental groups suing and winning. Folks who think this is a state v. fed issue are ignorant on the subject.
You are right there, state game agencies and the USFWS are both corrupt look at IDFG-USFWS-WDFW-USFWS-etc. history with wolves and the ESA. It's hard to tell which is more corrupt as they are pushing the same agenda for the environmentalists.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 04:50:48 PM
Yea, thats what it is...Wyoming and USFWS are in cahoots with the environmentalists to have their wolf plan rejected in court. Really, everybody is in on this mass conspiracy except you and a couple guys with remote cabins way back in the hills. :rolleyes: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.USFWS does not oppose the current WY plan, its the environmental groups suing and winning. Folks who think this is a state v. fed issue are ignorant on the subject.
You are right there, state game agencies and the USFWS are both corrupt look at IDFG-USFWS-WDFW-USFWS-etc. history with wolves and the ESA. It's hard to tell which is more corrupt as they are pushing the same agenda for the environmentalists.
Post by: wolfbait on September 25, 2014, 12:09:41 AM
Yea, thats what it is...Wyoming and USFWS are in cahoots with the environmentalists to have their wolf plan rejected in court. Really, everybody is in on this mass conspiracy except you and a couple guys with remote cabins way back in the hills. :rolleyes: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.USFWS does not oppose the current WY plan, its the environmental groups suing and winning. Folks who think this is a state v. fed issue are ignorant on the subject.
You are right there, state game agencies and the USFWS are both corrupt look at IDFG-USFWS-WDFW-USFWS-etc. history with wolves and the ESA. It's hard to tell which is more corrupt as they are pushing the same agenda for the environmentalists.
The only reason Wyoming are where they are is not because of their fish and game, it's because of their state legislators refuse to except a bogus wolf plan. But then you already know that.
Time to flop around like a fish out of water? Maybe it's time you jumped back to some of your other wolf/USFWS theories.
Post by: Bigshooter on September 26, 2014, 08:15:29 PM
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1833-68
The Judge basicly said that sice there was no guarantee from WY that they could maintain 100 wolves and 10 bps she turned protection back over to the feds. She also said that wolves had recovered in WY and that the predator zone is ok.
Here is a release from WY's governor:
Governor Mead Signs and Files Emergency Rule for Wolves
CHEYENNE – In response to the ruling by US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson placing the gray wolves back under the protection of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Governor Mead today signed and filed an emergency rule establishing that Wyoming’s commitment under its management plan is legally enforceable. The emergency rule has the full force and effect of law immediately and is effective for 120 days or 240 if extended by the Governor.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission initiated the formal rulemaking process set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act that will make this emergency rule permanent. The Commission expects to complete the process in November.
The Attorney General also filed a motion with the US District Court today asking the Court to recognize Wyoming's management commitments are legally enforceable.
“Now that Wyoming has resolved the Court’s concern, I hope the Court will amend its ruling and allow Wyoming’s continued management of gray wolves,” Governor Mead said.
Post by: timberfaller on September 29, 2014, 01:46:58 PM
:yike: never happen!! too much a liberal!!
Liberalism is a disease
And he and others like him are, Sicko's!