WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

[Jason Snyder]

Been keeping track of it for years and couldn't believe how much money they were charging us the taxpayers if they won a case. Unbelievable.

Here's one many such articles.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...g-green-groups-have-self-serving-bargain-with

The US taxpayer is supporting these groups while the EAJA is being abused to subvert the intent of the ESA. There's been a great deal of thought put into this by leftist thinking and it's working out great for them! I thought I'd read this had been changed in some way for these groups to not take advantage of this in the way they had.

What a great system for these groups. We're going to use Federal Pittman Robertson funds to do our backdoor bidding (since Congress wouldn't give them the money and the affected states all passed legislation saying they were against it) and force this non-native critter down your throats. Then, if you do something we don't like, like trying to un-list them, even though this was called an 'experimental, non-essential population, we'll sue you in a court using a sympathetic judge and then when he says we win, we'll charge large legal fees to the US taxpayer. Perfect.

Pretty sure the EAJA has not been amended to resolve this issue, but I'm not positive.

 

[tipsntails7]

As you might imagine, I'm a little confused...

Ya My bad..

 

[Jason Snyder]

I don't ultimately know of her merit in this instance either; I do believe she is pro wolf and that in her estimation the scientific basis of the Feds actions in this case was deeply flawed. As to the decision by the court in this issue.... so what? Are we going to start listing how many times a judge legislates rather than interprets? It reminds me of a quote I heard years ago..." You want justice? Go to a whore house. You want to get screwed? Go to a court house." This is obviously a heated topic and I will not forget that you and I likely have much more that we agree on than disagree on if only for the simple reason we both hunt and care about our game animals. I keep coming back to a simplistic view on the matter of wolves... Are they going to improve or degrade the quality of hunting as I have come to know it these last 33 years I have been chasing elk in Colorado? I feel certain I know the answer to that simple question.

I have a little different view of the court system than you do. While I don't always agree with it, I certainly think that overall it is a very good system. That said, I was certainly glad to see Judge Molloy retire.

As to your last question, I could look you straight in the eye and say that "it depends". For every unit I could show you where numbers aren't what they used to be, I could also show you units where elk numbers have been steadily climbing for years in the presence of wolves.

I'm bowing out here. I've obviously offended a couple of folks, and that wasn't the intent. I have no need to be "right", and I've stated my viewpoints. Peace.

 

[BroodBuster]

I read the Colorado Resolution and the proposed amendments. It pretty much reads like it was written by hunters and ranchers and state officials who cash their checks. No where did I see anything about introducing any wolves. I would think that it is prudent to have a wolf plan for when the do migrate to the state.

So I must say I'm really confused about this whole thread. Unless, of course, we are just bitching about horses that have already left the barn??

But I guess I'm lucky in that I live in and hunt in Wa. Our "Canadian" wolves walked here and didn't get a truck ride to Yellowstone.

 

[jmden]

This is a debate that will rage on for a long time. How this whole wolf introduction started is clearly full of enough crooked things that anyone with any objectivity should see that something was wrong from the start. Too many 'coincidences'. The powers that be were going to force it down our throats no matter what. And they did it. I've got tents to build and hunters who want 'em. I'm out for now...but will keep an eye on this thread.

 

[AZ Vince]

You do realize that saying this stuff out loud only reinforces the assumption that hunters are wackjobs divorced from any meaningful picture of reality, yes?

When lies become common those who speak the truth are hated.

 

[gmajor]

Management like everything else when the numbers justify it, which they do in many areas and soon will in many more. The real battle will be getting the litigious types to not hold up sound management programs based on biological data, which was the original agreement. That is, when a state's population hits a certain benchmark, seasons should be instated. Adhering to this agreement is crucial. Obviously there will be some lawsuits, but hopefully they become less frequent with more states adopting seasons. We will see, though. Buy a tag if/when your state has a season.

You can usually tell when state biologists have good data. One side attacks them for being ranchers in disguise out to eradicate wolves (Oregon pushing for ESA delisting), and the other thinks they're part of a government propaganda machine fiendishly protecting their public sector paycheck. Or you could, you know, train as a scientist and pass real judgement based on the methods.

 

[DaveC]

Oh, incidentally, are these biologists that you are polling cashing government pay checks? If they are- and what biologist doesn't work for the government- then just maybe they value their job and aren't going to acknowledge that their scientific justification is completely flawed.

In response to DaveC...

I hardly know where to start with this. I'm definitely biased, because I've seen good friends who are state and federal biologists struggle mightily when they're caught between the conclusions their work has given them and the recommendations bosses, legislators, and neighborhoods (many of whom are also friends, of all concerned) would prefer them to give. I'm sure there are a few bad apples, as there are anywhere, but I find it hard to not take offense when random people throw bombs from the cheap seats.

 

[Muledeerfanatic]

Its a heated debate between people that live out here and know whats up and people that think deer eventually turn into eik.
The good thing is they only kill weak animals.

 

[Muledeerfanatic]

Oh and always eat the entire thing after they kill it very humanely.

 

[DaveC]

The wolf is about a lot more run just eliminating hunting. It's about destroying the economy of the west so that the population living there will collapse. The ESA , CWA , and control of the federal lands is being used to push people off the land and into cities. The wolf is but one tool.

In fairness, the extractive economy upon which the west was built was always a ponzi scheme of sorts, and if water allocations and grazing fees hadn't been so wildly off from the beginning the crash we've seen in the past few decades wouldn't have been so spectacular.

So if you genuinely believe in the unmitigated dominion of man over the land then there is indeed a conspiracy afoot. Just realize that this is a dying worldview.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Management like all everything else when the numbers justify it, which they do in many areas and soon will in many more. The real battle will be getting the litigious types to not hold up management programs based on biological data, which was the original agreement. That is, when a state's population hits a certain benchmark, seasons should be instated. Adhering to this agreement is crucial. Obviously there will be some lawsuits, but hopefully they become less frequent with more states adopting seasons. We will see, though. Buy a tag if/when your state has a season.

You can usually tell when state biologists have good data. One side attacks them for being ranchers in disguise out to eradicate wolves (Oregon pushing for ESA delisting), and the other thinks they're part of a government propaganda machine fiendishly protecting their public sector paycheck. Or you could, you know, train as a scientist and pass real judgement based on the methods.

Excellent post.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Just critters doing what critters do? How did the get here? Doing what critters do...transported from many miles north in Canada by humans. Oh, right. And, forced down our throats by a run amok ESA used to extremes by a leftist environmental philosophy.

60 million dollars was stolen by USFWS ultimately under Clinton leadership from the Pittman Robertson fund to make this happen after congress denied funding for it. (You watched the documentaries I mentioned to you?) Money that's supposed to go to managing wildlife not unloosing a non-native, invasive subspecies when the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf was already here and there own information said so, as I linked way above! If there's already wolves here, wasn't every effort made to bring those back? They said there was one knows pack and several loners of this native sub-species in their own report but that there was no viable population? What? Is that what we decided about the California Condor? This thing is and has been as political and crooked as you can get. You either do not know the history or refuse to see it or haven't done the research.

Here's the link again: take a look at page iv of the Preface. So a whole subspecies gone now. That's good wildlife management. There's many other crooked things about this whole introduction of non-native, invasive subspecies as well.

EDIT: Forgot to add the link. Sorry: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/northernrockymountainwolfrecoveryplan.pdf

Do you know that until just recently when congress closed the loophole, these environmental groups were suing about the wolves left and right and that when they won, we the taxpayers go to foot their huge legal bills? Look it up. More crookedness. Economic benefit. The wolf is big business for some of these groups. If it becomes less so, they'll find another critter to champion (not that some don't need it) and the donor will contribute.

I can't hunt wolves in WA yet and in this liberal state, I may not be able to ever do it. I drew a cow tag a couple of years ago on the eastside and inserted myself well before light a ways back in the snow. All I saw was tons of wolf trax in the snow for miles, no deer, no elk trax. I've had may close encounters with wolves, mostly on Vancouver Island where there is a very healthy population. BTW, why don't you guys look up the work on wolves by Dr. Valerie Geist, now retired and living on Vancouver Island where local to him they are having routine trouble with wolves even there. He is know around the globe as a wolf biologist and has some interesting things to say about them.

I do have a degree in biology, so know a little bit about some of this stuff. Been awhile, but...

Haven't had time to watch the documentary but plan to. I don't have a degree in biology (geography) so I'll will accept that you know more than the average person regarding this aspect of the wolf issues. But I think we can both agree that wolves are but one factor in a declining prey base. Yes, wolves have an impact. So does weather, other predation, hunting, poor management, etc. Should wolves be managed? Absolutely. But I think it's naive to assume once the wolves hit the ground, the elk are toast, which is exactly the message I get from the vehemently anti-wolf crowd.

As somebody with a background in biology, humor me for a moment. As Jason pointed out, while some areas have had declines since the (re)introduction of wolves, other areas have seen increases in the elk population. My own theory is that when an area elk herd first interacts with wolves, the elk don't really now how to act and the decline in population can be very rapid . Eventually, elk re-learn how to live with wolves and the population stabilizes or even increases. As stated, my own anecdotal evidence this fall showed the area elk in good numbers and willing to vocalize despite active wolf packs in the area. But these elk have been around wolves as part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem for longer than other herds so maybe they have returned back to their state of co-existence with wolves, as they had for thousands of years? Thoughts?

 

[gelton]

With the political landscape like it is today, people tend to latch on to a subject and then defend their viewpoint as legitimate without seeing its actually a very simple equation:

Wolves are carnivores. Carnivores diets largely consists of herbivores. Elk are herbivores. More wolves equal less elk and deer. Or said another way, IF there are more carnivores, THEN there will be less herbivores.

Mankind have an everlasting enemy in varmints like coyotes, wolves, hogs, and in large part, we are winning. However, its the "progressives" who look at humankinds thousands of years of history spent hunting as archaic and inhumane, but will watch videos of wolves taking out an entire elk herd with glee calling it natural.

 

[Shrek]

Yellowstone herd had a small comeback when disease knocked the wolves back. USFW stepped in and captured and vaccinated the the dominant pairs to prevent a complete wolf population bust. As it was the wolf loses allowed a small rebound in the Yellowstone elk herd.

 

[TraderMike]

I hardly know where to start with this. I'm definitely biased, because I've seen good friends who are state and federal biologists struggle mightily when they're caught between the conclusions their work has given them and the recommendations bosses, legislators, and neighborhoods (many of whom are also friends, of all concerned) would prefer them to give. I'm sure there are a few bad apples, as there are anywhere, but I find it hard to not take offense when random people throw bombs from the cheap seats.

My cheap seat is in the middle of the TAX PAYER section where I have watched the Fed Gvmnt grow into a grotesquely bloated beaurocracy that is corrupt to the core and shows no ability what so ever to police itself while pursuing political agendas set forth by whomever happens to occupy the White House.

 

[tipsntails7]

WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

Yellowstone herd had a small comeback when disease knocked the wolves back. USFW stepped in and captured and vaccinated the the dominant pairs to prevent a complete wolf population bust. As it was the wolf loses allowed a small rebound in the Yellowstone elk herd.

That is such utter BS.., do you even use facts in any of these arguments?

 

[2ski]

Yellowstone herd had a small comeback when disease knocked the wolves back. USFW stepped in and captured and vaccinated the the dominant pairs to prevent a complete wolf population bust. As it was the wolf loses allowed a small rebound in the Yellowstone elk herd.

But was the Yellowstone elk herd a healthy size prior to wolves? I would argue no. Elk were overrunning riparian areas and such. And the shootout every fall/winter in Gardiner was ridiculous and idiotic. Not to mention dangerous. The population was too big. You can debate if you want about it being a healthy size now. My only intent of this post is to point out that the decline of elk in Yellowstone was not an entirely bad thing.

The daily limit of lake trout in Flathead lake is 100 per day. When they moved it that high it pissed some people off because they wanted to be able to catch 5 lake trout in 20 minutes and have dinner. Its fun to have high rates of success, like everyone in Gardiner, but it doesn't mean its a healthy population and as sportsman, we hang our hats on managing populations to healthy levels. This does not mean over abundance of animals just so we have high success rates.

 

[jmden]

http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/informing-misinformed-about-wolves.html

Interesting read written by RMEF Prez David Allen in 2014.

 

[jmden]

http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/get-facts.html