Wyoming Game & Fish requests Feds: “Let the hunters remove the goats”

[wymtnpounder]

They say that in one breath and our trying to aerial gun a band of Rams in the next. The WY Governor's sheep tag just brought 110,000.
https://www.wyofile.com/bighorns-bears-and-bad-blood-grazing-v-wildlife-on-owl-creek/

 

[5MilesBack]

The supreme court has upheld the wildlife "ownership" argument saying that wildlife and land ownership are not connected. Wildlife is transient and also held in trust for the citizens of the State it resides in (ownership if you will).

This would also apply to bringing wolves back to a particular state. If the state owns and manages the wildlife then the state dictates which wildlife is "reintroduced" into their state......for purposes of managing the new invasive species, as well as managing the effects of reintroducing those species on other species.......regardless who's land they are released on.

 

[jmez]

When the Feds are involved the rules only apply "when they do."

 

[BuzzH]

This would also apply to bringing wolves back to a particular state. If the state owns and manages the wildlife then the state dictates which wildlife is "reintroduced" into their state......for purposes of managing the new invasive species, as well as managing the effects of reintroducing those species on other species.......regardless who's land they are released on.

Nice try, but no.

The Federal Government has 3 specific areas where wildlife is not controlled by the States, all recognized by Acts of Congress:

1. Endangered species.
2. Migratory Birds
3. Anadromous Fish

Those are not controlled by the States, although the Feds are required to cooperate with the States.

In the case of wolves, the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming entered into a binding agreement on wolf reintroduction with the Federal Government.

 

[Justin Crossley]

This is similar to what happened here in western WA. Hunters would have lined up and spent a ton of money for the chance to go after the goats. Instead, they were captured and transported to other areas. Some died on the trip due to incompetency (IMO). Any goats they weren't able to catch (have to think that number is pretty high) were gunned down by sharpshooters from the air. I don't even want to know what that cost.

 

[5MilesBack]

In the case of wolves, the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming entered into a binding agreement on wolf reintroduction with the Federal Government.

Wolves are anything but endangered species. And it was my understanding that those same states did NOT even want the wolves reintroduced to their states. Was that a one-sided binding agreement???

 

[5MilesBack]

When the Feds are involved the rules only apply "when they do."

Yep, just change the classifications on a federal level and BAM........the states lose their own rights.

 

[BuzzH]

Wolves are anything but endangered species. And it was my understanding that those same states did NOT even want the wolves reintroduced to their states. Was that a one-sided binding agreement???

They were listed in 1976ish in the lower 48 and yes, population segments can be listed even though the species may be not listed in other areas (think wolves, grizzly bear, lynx, wolverine, caribou). The species may not be in need of listing as a whole/range wide, but may be warranted in say, the lower 48.

I'm not going to argue about the validity of listing population segments, that's already been decided by the ESA and is addressed there.

Your understanding is wrong, of the comments received, a majority of residents in MT and ID were in favor, it was about a 50-50 split in Wyoming. That's public record in the FEIS. Nationwide support was over whelming in favor of reintroduction, also part of the public record in the FEIS. Not sure if its still the case, but at the time wolf reintroduction received more public comment than any other EIS process in the history of NEPA.

No the agreement wasn't one sided, the States had input through the entire process and were 100% responsible for drafting their state wolf management plans. The agreement was binding, or why have an agreement to begin with. Kind of the point to an agreement.

 

[Muley_GOAT]

They were listed in 1976ish in the lower 48 and yes, population segments can be listed even though the species may be not listed in other areas (think wolves, grizzly bear, lynx, wolverine, caribou). The species may not be in need of listing as a whole/range wide, but may be warranted in say, the lower 48.

I'm not going to argue about the validity of listing population segments, that's already been decided by the ESA and is addressed there.

Your understanding is wrong, of the comments received, a majority of residents in MT and ID were in favor, it was about a 50-50 split in Wyoming. That's public record in the FEIS. Nationwide support was over whelming in favor of reintroduction, also part of the public record in the FEIS. Not sure if its still the case, but at the time wolf reintroduction received more public comment than any other EIS process in the history of NEPA.

No the agreement wasn't one sided, the States had input through the entire process and were 100% responsible for drafting their state wolf management plans. The agreement was binding, or why have an agreement to begin with. Kind

I wonder how the vote would go now... Too bad we can't un-introduce them

 

[BuzzH]

I wonder how the vote would go now... Too bad we can't un-introduce them

Honestly, probably not much different than the first time around...and there wasn't a vote.

In general 99.9% of hunters are a complacent bunch that are only concerned with wildlife during hunting season, the rest of the year, they could care less. More important stuff to do like take the old lady and kids to Disney land, watch TV, drink beer, etc. etc. etc.

Exactly why I see very few hunters attend commission meetings, GF meetings, legislative sessions, interim committee meetings, land board meetings, FS/BLM RMP and FP meetings, and the list goes on and on. Things that directly impact wildlife are poorly attended by the hunting community, been that way for decades and continues to be. Sad too, because if even an honest 1% of hunters showed up, we could have an incredible amount of influence.

Of course, they don't attend anything, but the first to bitch when the fertilizer hits the ventilator, complaining because the people that did attend, did take the time to submit comments, did contact their legislators, got what they want.

 

[BuzzH]

Oh, and to illustrate the point...

This thread is something that is directly impacting wildlife, on a hunting board, with supposedly a majority of people here calling themselves hunters.

31 replies 1k views...

A couple threads down...NFL playoffs, 236 replies and 6k views

Another thread on sasquatch for hells sake...231 replies and 10k views.

You wonder why wolf reintroduction happened without so much as a whimper from the hunting community?

Well, there it is...

 

[Muley_GOAT]

Honestly, probably not much different than the first time around...and there wasn't a vote.

In general 99.9% of hunters are a complacent bunch that are only concerned with wildlife during hunting season, the rest of the year, they could care less. More important stuff to do like take the old lady and kids to Disney land, watch TV, drink beer, etc. etc. etc.

Exactly why I see very few hunters attend commission meetings, GF meetings, legislative sessions, interim committee meetings, land board meetings, FS/BLM RMP and FP meetings, and the list goes on and on. Things that directly impact wildlife are poorly attended by the hunting community, been that way for decades and continues to be. Sad too, because if even an honest 1% of hunters showed up, we could have an incredible amount of influence.

Of course, they don't attend anything, but the first to bitch when the fertilizer hits the ventilator, complaining because the people that did attend, did take the time to submit comments, did contact their legislators, got what they want.

Yeah, hunters suck. I'm glad there aren't any on this forum
I feel you there tho. We gotta speak up or shut up...
However, I will say that in idaho I did attend a meeting when IDFG were offering hunters input regarding new ATV restrictions. There were about 30-40 people present. Only 1 dude voiced his opinion for the new restrictions in this particular game management unit. The rest were strongly against it. But guess what happened, F&G told legislators people in that unit were mostly for the new law. And it dun got passed.
I don't think it's always all about HOW many speak up, but sometimes WHO they decide to listen to . Just sayin'
Plus I'm one of the hunters definitely bitchin about wolves. I was a teenager at the time and I wish I would have been better informed about the potential consequences. I guess I'm just bitter. That blinds me a bit I suppose
It'll be interesting to see how things shake out in Colorado.

 

[BuzzH]

Yeah, hunters suck. I'm glad there aren't any on this forum
I feel you there tho. We gotta speak up or shut up...
However, I will say that in idaho I did attend a meeting when IDFG were offering hunters input regarding new ATV restrictions. There were about 30-40 people present. Only 1 dude voiced his opinion for the new restrictions in this particular game management unit. The rest were strongly against it. But guess what happened, F&G told legislators people in that unit were mostly for the new law. And it dun got passed.
I don't think it's always all about HOW many speak up, but sometimes WHO they decide to listen to . Just sayin'
Plus I'm one of the hunters definitely bitchin about wolves. I was a teenager at the time and I wish I would have been better informed about the potential consequences. I guess I'm just bitter. That blinds me a bit I suppose
It'll be interesting to see how things shake out in Colorado.

That's another thing I hear too...well this one time I went and made comments, they didn't do what I wanted so I'm never going to attend another.

That's called reality...we don't always have things go our way, but its not an excuse to not attend, not submit comments, not continue to talk to the decision makers, not to continue to be as informed as you can be.

I agree that it stings when you present a solid case and those that make the decisions don't see it your way...but there are times when they will.

Wildlife, public lands, and hunting/fishing need our advocacy...its a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[Muley_GOAT]

People are lazy. They need an easy way to speak up. Or motivation. There is a non profit group here that if you join for $35 a year they will reimburse your expenses up to several hundred $$ for each wolf you kill. That motivated me lol.
But we digress. Give us a simple way to protest the method by which they have chosen to eliminate the goats, like send a message to all the members on here with a link to a website with a pre filled form and just put your email in and click send, maybe we would get more participants.
Doesn't change that no matter how this shakes out, I'm worried for the future of hunting.

 

[Muley_GOAT]

That's another thing I hear too...well this one time I went and made comments, they didn't do what I wanted so I'm never going to attend another.

That's called reality...we don't always have things go our way, but its not an excuse to not attend, not submit comments, not continue to talk to the decision makers, not to continue to be as informed as you can be.

I agree that it stings when you present a solid case and those that make the decisions don't see it your way...but there are times when they will.

Wildlife, public lands, and hunting/fishing need our advocacy...its a marathon, not a sprint.

Umm I never said I wouldn't attend another meeting or that I was giving up dude.
Just sayin, sometimes people do speak up, but it doesn't matter. They are going to do it how they want and say it went down the way they want. And sometimes the opposition doesn't play fair. But like you said, that's life. It's not cool when people are making assumptions or over generalizations to make a point. That only works 60% of the time, every time.

 

[BuzzH]

People are lazy. They need an easy way to speak up. Or motivation. There is a non profit group here that if you join for $35 a year they will reimburse your expenses up to several hundred $$ for each wolf you kill. That motivated me lol.
But we digress. Give us a simple way to protest the method by which they have chosen to eliminate the goats, like send a message to all the members on here with a link to a website with a pre filled form and just put your email in and click send, maybe we would get more participants.
Doesn't change that no matter how this shakes out, I'm worried for the future of hunting.

Advocacy isn't easy...its never convenient, never comfortable, and takes a concerted effort.

I do it because I feel an obligation to both the people that have done my bidding in the past that have allowed me to enjoy the things I have, and for those in the future that I (hopefully) keep for them to enjoy.

 

[Neverenoughhntn]

They say that in one breath and our trying to aerial gun a band of Rams in the next. The WY Governor's sheep tag just brought 110,000.
https://www.wyofile.com/bighorns-bears-and-bad-blood-grazing-v-wildlife-on-owl-creek/

I read that a couple weeks back and also found it rather ironic. I’d be curious to know where the wild sheep foundation, etc. stand on both of these issues.

... regarding the topic in general... I’m all for incorporating sportsmen; however, sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture with regard to conservation. There are some circumstances where immediate action has to be taken, and sportsmen take a backseat. Whether this is one of those times or not, honestly I’m not sure. We don’t have to like it necessarily, and should question such actions; however, I do think that there are certain circumstances where such actions are necessary. If I had to venture to guess, I would assume that the course of action for NPS may revolve more around NEPA documents, and trying to get this done before getting sued (?)

 

[Trial153]

Ryan Callahan had pretty good perspective on this issue on his pod cast this week. It’s way more multifaceted then just sending hunters out to kill the goats.

Unfortunately we have a habit of over simplifying issues and are masters of only looking at the information that confirms our opinions while we ignore information that challenges our preconceived ideas.

 

[5MilesBack]

Nationwide support was over whelming in favor of reintroduction, also part of the public record in the FEIS.

I wonder what the nationwide support level would be to introduce wolves into Central Park, Chicago, LA, SF, etc, etc. Those wolves would have to be on the endangered lists for those locales. It's funny how that support is overwhelmingly positive when those that support something doesn't affect those people at all. Kind of like all the money that was used to get the wolf on the CO ballot........it all came from outside CO. Lunatic activism at its best.

 

[5MilesBack]

Of course, they don't attend anything, but the first to bitch when the fertilizer hits the ventilator, complaining because the people that did attend, did take the time to submit comments, did contact their legislators, got what they want.

Yep, just like the marijuana legislation. But just because a bunch of nutjobs get together to protest for what they want, isn't even close to being what is actually needed or even logical. At some point there has to be an adult in the room, and that should be the legislature regardless of who is promoting or supporting these ideas. Unfortunately, most legislatures these days are filled with the romper room kids that these same activists voted to put into the legislature.