BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR needs to get his "facts" straight...
FWS Ready to Compromise With Wyoming
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
These wolf debates bring out the best in all of us. The hairpiece thing was a great touch. I am on Buzz's side as far as being able to win against the feds. Its just not likely. I am no lawyer and don't have a degree, but any person knows that the most outstanding battle over states rights was the Civil War. Even in that situation the feds won, even if you don't look at it that way. Its a reality that its really tough to win, and to fight it all the way up to the top would be crazy. The compromise doesn't sound bad in my opinion. Well, it will be interesting to see what people say to me about this post.
cmiddleton
New member
bhr and i don't care if they ever delist if the plan is unworkable.
you guys can't even debate without getting personal get your f'ing wolves the hell out of our state.
bhr is the only one here who agrees that you don't compramise on things that really matter in life.
the rest of you can roll over and play dead,sit,stay just like your government agency is telling you to do.
BHR IS the only one of you with any backbone.
go back to Missloula
your bird is in a cage
win lose or draw buzz BHR and i will stand our ground.at least we put up a fight and don't act like the french
you guys can't even debate without getting personal get your f'ing wolves the hell out of our state.
bhr is the only one here who agrees that you don't compramise on things that really matter in life.
the rest of you can roll over and play dead,sit,stay just like your government agency is telling you to do.
BHR IS the only one of you with any backbone.
go back to Missloula
your bird is in a cage
win lose or draw buzz BHR and i will stand our ground.at least we put up a fight and don't act like the french
BuzzH
Well-known member
Middleton,
If you even grasped the basics on this issue...you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.
Get over the "wolves should have never been put here in the first place" crap. We've already been over that, a majority of people in the US and a clear majority in MT, ID, and WY wanted them. Its how things work in the United States...if you dont like it move out.
The wolves are here, they're staying, and now its time for WY to pull its head out. Find an acceptable plan that the three states can agree to along with the USFWS and get to managing wolves.
Its the only option left...period.
If you even grasped the basics on this issue...you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.
Get over the "wolves should have never been put here in the first place" crap. We've already been over that, a majority of people in the US and a clear majority in MT, ID, and WY wanted them. Its how things work in the United States...if you dont like it move out.
The wolves are here, they're staying, and now its time for WY to pull its head out. Find an acceptable plan that the three states can agree to along with the USFWS and get to managing wolves.
Its the only option left...period.
cmiddleton
New member
time for fws to take it out they can fight it out in court.win lose or draw its the amarican way. if it was left to you we would still be part of england.
getting them delisted isn't worth doing if control is lost to get them there.
what you gonna do when the next anti gun bill comes along roll over and play dead?
this naition is built on different opinions and we all don't have to agree with you. if you jump every time the government snaps its fingers you might as well live in cuba or north korea.
we don't agree with you and never will doesn't meen i'll do as much complaining as you even if we don't win in court but if we do i bet you will be the biggest whinner of all. let the court case go on forever if thats what it takes.
if you montana and idaho guys did as much complaining to the fws as you do here they would have accepted the plan already.just to get your whinney butts away from them.
accept it wyoming has a workable plan its the fws thats out of line.
far as i'm concerned they could shoot them all, wolves and wolf lovers.
start at the top of the usfws and work our way down to the vary last wolf and take no prisoners in between.
getting them delisted isn't worth doing if control is lost to get them there.
what you gonna do when the next anti gun bill comes along roll over and play dead?
this naition is built on different opinions and we all don't have to agree with you. if you jump every time the government snaps its fingers you might as well live in cuba or north korea.
we don't agree with you and never will doesn't meen i'll do as much complaining as you even if we don't win in court but if we do i bet you will be the biggest whinner of all. let the court case go on forever if thats what it takes.
if you montana and idaho guys did as much complaining to the fws as you do here they would have accepted the plan already.just to get your whinney butts away from them.
accept it wyoming has a workable plan its the fws thats out of line.
far as i'm concerned they could shoot them all, wolves and wolf lovers.
start at the top of the usfws and work our way down to the vary last wolf and take no prisoners in between.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Middleton,
That has to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.
What does anti-gun legislation have to do with WY's failure to come up with an acceptable wolf plan?
Not sure what Cuba and North Korea have to do with it either??? I dont think the USFWS is requiring either country to come up with an acceptable wolf management plan for ID, MT, or WY...last I checked.
I've heard lots of idiots talk about shooting wolves...but wolf lovers? WOW! You've got some serious issues...seek help immediately.
Oh, and if WY had a workable plan...the USFWS would have already accepted it...but that aint the case is it?
That has to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.
What does anti-gun legislation have to do with WY's failure to come up with an acceptable wolf plan?
Not sure what Cuba and North Korea have to do with it either??? I dont think the USFWS is requiring either country to come up with an acceptable wolf management plan for ID, MT, or WY...last I checked.
I've heard lots of idiots talk about shooting wolves...but wolf lovers? WOW! You've got some serious issues...seek help immediately.
Oh, and if WY had a workable plan...the USFWS would have already accepted it...but that aint the case is it?
Ithaca 37
New member
And that's saying a lot, 'cuz we really see some stupid posts here. I gotta say, though, cmiddleton can give BHR, Ten Bears and MD4me a run for the money any day of the week!
cmiddleton
New member
We are such bad people because our opinion differs from yours...... it has to do with rolling over to someone elses opinion.
sit! staY!ROLL OVER!
IN THOSE COUNTRYS YOU BETTER JUMP WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SNAPS ITS FINGERS.
here we are aloud to have different opinions.
this IS a republican state and we have elected a demacrate two times in a row.
If the majoraty of WYOMING PEOPLE wanted wolf reinterduction and to roll over to USFWS don't you think we would have voted the other way arround.
Dave IS our governer BECAUSE we support WYOMINGS WOLF PLAN.
SIT STAY SHUTUP
sit! staY!ROLL OVER!
IN THOSE COUNTRYS YOU BETTER JUMP WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SNAPS ITS FINGERS.
here we are aloud to have different opinions.
this IS a republican state and we have elected a demacrate two times in a row.
If the majoraty of WYOMING PEOPLE wanted wolf reinterduction and to roll over to USFWS don't you think we would have voted the other way arround.
Dave IS our governer BECAUSE we support WYOMINGS WOLF PLAN.
SIT STAY SHUTUP
BigHornRam
Well-known member
middleton,
Buzz, Ithaca, and Joesa, all were in favor of Idaho's wolf slaughter plan in the upper Clearwater. 100% consensus by the 3 Fools.....an opinion which I shared. The feds shot them down on that plan, and they still think WYOMING is the problem. Naive, stupid, or whatever, that's just the 3 Fool's for you.
Explain this too me someone. All the wolf huggers here said that the problem with Wyomings management plan was the "dual classification status". Now the FWS comes out and says that they have no problem with it. So either you guys are idiots, or Bangs is a LIAR. Which one is it?
Buzz, Ithaca, and Joesa, all were in favor of Idaho's wolf slaughter plan in the upper Clearwater. 100% consensus by the 3 Fools.....an opinion which I shared. The feds shot them down on that plan, and they still think WYOMING is the problem. Naive, stupid, or whatever, that's just the 3 Fool's for you.
Explain this too me someone. All the wolf huggers here said that the problem with Wyomings management plan was the "dual classification status". Now the FWS comes out and says that they have no problem with it. So either you guys are idiots, or Bangs is a LIAR. Which one is it?
cmiddleton said:
Middleton, what exactly is your opinion? So far all I have gotten from you is...
cmiddleton said:
cmiddleton said:
Oh yeh, there was some stuff about Cuba, North Korea and being French?
If you want to debate Buzz, at least educate yourself on the subject and come up with better resolution than what you have shown us so far.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Miller,
Are you taking shots at my crazy wing man? I notice you guy's like to pick on the weak and ignore the tough questions.
Instead of highlighting Middletons rants, answer this one......
"All the wolf huggers here said that the problem with Wyomings management plan was the "dual classification status". Now the FWS comes out and says that they have no problem with it. So either you guys are idiots, or Bangs is a LIAR. Which one is it?"
Also answer why FWS waited until after the election to offer a "compromise"?
Thanks!
Are you taking shots at my crazy wing man? I notice you guy's like to pick on the weak and ignore the tough questions.
Instead of highlighting Middletons rants, answer this one......
"All the wolf huggers here said that the problem with Wyomings management plan was the "dual classification status". Now the FWS comes out and says that they have no problem with it. So either you guys are idiots, or Bangs is a LIAR. Which one is it?"
Also answer why FWS waited until after the election to offer a "compromise"?
Thanks!
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
As usual, you still fail to grasp the basic concepts.
If WY had an acceptable plan, the feds would not have control of wolf management...MT, ID, and WY would have control.
In that case, Idaho would not have to seek permission from the feds to dust a few wolves in the Clearwater.
Pretty simple...yet you still dont get it.
Middleton, I dont know what to say to your twisted and warped logic. Your grasp of politics in WY is nearly as bad as your grasp of the wolf issue. I really doubt Freudenthal was carried because of his stance on the wolf issue. I bet 95% of WY residents couldnt care less about wolves one way or the other.
As usual, you still fail to grasp the basic concepts.
If WY had an acceptable plan, the feds would not have control of wolf management...MT, ID, and WY would have control.
In that case, Idaho would not have to seek permission from the feds to dust a few wolves in the Clearwater.
Pretty simple...yet you still dont get it.
Middleton, I dont know what to say to your twisted and warped logic. Your grasp of politics in WY is nearly as bad as your grasp of the wolf issue. I really doubt Freudenthal was carried because of his stance on the wolf issue. I bet 95% of WY residents couldnt care less about wolves one way or the other.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
If FWS approved Wyomings plan or worked on a compromise with them from day one, then we would be a lot closer to delisting than we are now. They didn't. It took a Wyoming suit and a landslide victory by Freudenthal to get them to the table. Even Montana's head FWP man Hagner states that it's the feds that are the problem, so who doesn't "get it". If Wyoming gets a good offer, and turns it down, then maybe I'll reconsider.
Craig,
We agree on more things than you think...just disagree on the approach. You didn't answer any of my questions however.
If FWS approved Wyomings plan or worked on a compromise with them from day one, then we would be a lot closer to delisting than we are now. They didn't. It took a Wyoming suit and a landslide victory by Freudenthal to get them to the table. Even Montana's head FWP man Hagner states that it's the feds that are the problem, so who doesn't "get it". If Wyoming gets a good offer, and turns it down, then maybe I'll reconsider.
Craig,
We agree on more things than you think...just disagree on the approach. You didn't answer any of my questions however.
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
If WY would have come up with an acceptable plan from day one...there would be no reason to "compromise".
The state of Wyoming was fully aware of the agreement reached between ID, MT, and WY per the EIS agreed to by all interested parties. WY failed to live up to the EIS and come up with an acceptable plan...simple as that.
Why is that MT and ID both drafted plans that were acceptable to the USFWS and the EIS...yet WY is failing to do so?
Its ridiculous, a third grader would be smart enough to read the plans put in place by ID and MT and then pretty much draft a similar management plan.
There is no justification for WY's behavior...just catering to welfare ranchers who are afraid of the big bad wolf and other fairy tales.
If WY would have come up with an acceptable plan from day one...there would be no reason to "compromise".
The state of Wyoming was fully aware of the agreement reached between ID, MT, and WY per the EIS agreed to by all interested parties. WY failed to live up to the EIS and come up with an acceptable plan...simple as that.
Why is that MT and ID both drafted plans that were acceptable to the USFWS and the EIS...yet WY is failing to do so?
Its ridiculous, a third grader would be smart enough to read the plans put in place by ID and MT and then pretty much draft a similar management plan.
There is no justification for WY's behavior...just catering to welfare ranchers who are afraid of the big bad wolf and other fairy tales.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Here's some fun reading from one of the wolf hugger blogs......seems that they think Ed sold them out. I'm surprised you don't feel that way Buzz....your thinking is in line with most of these guy's!
1. Todd Ringler | December 15th, 2006 at 12:26 am
(i think the link to the article needs to be fixed).
this is bad news for Colorado — it would remove any chance for a couple of wolves to set up shop in Colorado.
2. Robert Hoskins | December 15th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Just another example of Bush administration sleaze.
I would argue that since the Final Rule declared the entire state of Wyoming as part of the recovery area, and since this proposal radically changes the recovery area, the FWS would have to, at a minimum, go through the entire NEPA process to rewrite this aspect of the rule.
Todd is correct; the link does not work. I had to get to the story through my regular bookmark to the JHN&G.
It’s fixed now. RM
3. david aiken | December 15th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Manage wolves?! That is hogwash! Why do we need to delist wolves and open them up to killing, BY ANY MEANS?! What have they ever done except maintain the balance in nature? I know I may be “preaching to the choir” but any plan that allows killing of wolves is unconscionable.
How can our family and friends do more so that a voice of reason is heard and we stop this insanity before it is too late?
If for no other reason I would think economics would stop the slaughter of wolves. I recall cold, miserable November day in Yellowstone when you wouldn’t think there would be ANY reason for tourists to be in the park. We came around the corner and there was a traffic jam with tourists trying to catch a glimpse of a wolf pack in Lamar Valley feeding. Several came from great distances (we are from Michigan) just for the sole chance of seeing a wolf!
Please direct us as to how we can do more to help the wolves.
Thank you.
4. Ronnie | December 15th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Wolves travel large distances,, it’s what wolves do. I am for management, but what about the wolves moving out of this area to find new territories? If a wolf is dispersing and not disturbing livestock on their way to Utah or Colorado, I don’t feel they should be shot on sight for simply being a wolf..
The folks running the state of Wyoming don’t agree with you. I think this device will fail in the courts, but in these days of government by cronyism and corruption, you can never tell.
5. Jim | December 15th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
In the last days of his adminstration, President Carter created the ANWR. In the last days of his administration, President Clinton signed the roadless bill into effect. Both of those measures were unpopular with Republicans. Now that they are about to lose control of the house and senate alot of what the repubs are doing now seems to be the same type of thing. Passing anti-environment measures out of spite. Turn about is fair play, it is said, but at least (even in the last minute kinda sneaky and underhanded way that they did them)Carter and Clinton were doing GOOD things.
6. Ralph Maughan | December 15th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
I thought that too
and these folks about doing things that are hostile to our future, and they are not really losing power yet because Bush has 2 years more and the Republicans have not clearly lost the Senate. Many expect them to make a bid for joint control come January if Senator Johnson isn’t well, and he won’t be.
7. Howard | December 16th, 2006 at 9:24 am
So basically, Yellowstone National Park is a large mammal prison for the Northern Rocky states? No bison in Montana, no wolves in most of Wyoming, and no grizzlies in Idaho.
8. Bob Ostler | December 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
It would be interesting to know what sort of pressure is being put on Ed Bangs. From what I know he supports management, but this really doesn’t sound like him.
9. Ralph Maughan | December 16th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
It’s pretty hard for one bureaucrat to stand up to a department loaded with ideological political appointees and/or those with no ethics.
The Department of Interior has had a real air of corruption about during the Bush Administration with ethics investigations into several key political appointments.
That why it is good the conservation organizations have lawyers to keep them from wandering too far from law during the death throes of this Administration.
10. Tim Z. | December 18th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Ralph have you ever met or spoken with Ed Bangs? I have heard rumors that he is really not the right person to manage wolf recovery as he is not all that sympathic to the wolf. I have never been able to substantiate that however.
11. Ralph Maughan | December 18th, 2006 at 10:10 am
I’ve talked with Ed many times. He’s sympathetic to the wolf, but he is strong in his views. He managed wolves very much like he told me he was going to in a meeting I had with him in Helena way back in late 1993.
What’s going on today, however, I think is not Ed, but stuff from the top. There was little discussion when Dale Hall became head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but he was responsible for the near collapse of the Mexican wolf restoration program when he was head of that region. Hall headed up that region of the Service.
I talked with one biologist who interviewed for the job heading up the Mexican wolf program. After talking with Hall, he withdrew his application, and told me Hall was a &^%!@ and a @%^((*%$. More profanity followed.
Hall is in bed with the extractive industry. On top of that, all of the political ranks of Interior are hostile to wolves.
1. Todd Ringler | December 15th, 2006 at 12:26 am
(i think the link to the article needs to be fixed).
this is bad news for Colorado — it would remove any chance for a couple of wolves to set up shop in Colorado.
2. Robert Hoskins | December 15th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Just another example of Bush administration sleaze.
I would argue that since the Final Rule declared the entire state of Wyoming as part of the recovery area, and since this proposal radically changes the recovery area, the FWS would have to, at a minimum, go through the entire NEPA process to rewrite this aspect of the rule.
Todd is correct; the link does not work. I had to get to the story through my regular bookmark to the JHN&G.
It’s fixed now. RM
3. david aiken | December 15th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Manage wolves?! That is hogwash! Why do we need to delist wolves and open them up to killing, BY ANY MEANS?! What have they ever done except maintain the balance in nature? I know I may be “preaching to the choir” but any plan that allows killing of wolves is unconscionable.
How can our family and friends do more so that a voice of reason is heard and we stop this insanity before it is too late?
If for no other reason I would think economics would stop the slaughter of wolves. I recall cold, miserable November day in Yellowstone when you wouldn’t think there would be ANY reason for tourists to be in the park. We came around the corner and there was a traffic jam with tourists trying to catch a glimpse of a wolf pack in Lamar Valley feeding. Several came from great distances (we are from Michigan) just for the sole chance of seeing a wolf!
Please direct us as to how we can do more to help the wolves.
Thank you.
4. Ronnie | December 15th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Wolves travel large distances,, it’s what wolves do. I am for management, but what about the wolves moving out of this area to find new territories? If a wolf is dispersing and not disturbing livestock on their way to Utah or Colorado, I don’t feel they should be shot on sight for simply being a wolf..
The folks running the state of Wyoming don’t agree with you. I think this device will fail in the courts, but in these days of government by cronyism and corruption, you can never tell.
5. Jim | December 15th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
In the last days of his adminstration, President Carter created the ANWR. In the last days of his administration, President Clinton signed the roadless bill into effect. Both of those measures were unpopular with Republicans. Now that they are about to lose control of the house and senate alot of what the repubs are doing now seems to be the same type of thing. Passing anti-environment measures out of spite. Turn about is fair play, it is said, but at least (even in the last minute kinda sneaky and underhanded way that they did them)Carter and Clinton were doing GOOD things.
6. Ralph Maughan | December 15th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
I thought that too
and these folks about doing things that are hostile to our future, and they are not really losing power yet because Bush has 2 years more and the Republicans have not clearly lost the Senate. Many expect them to make a bid for joint control come January if Senator Johnson isn’t well, and he won’t be.
7. Howard | December 16th, 2006 at 9:24 am
So basically, Yellowstone National Park is a large mammal prison for the Northern Rocky states? No bison in Montana, no wolves in most of Wyoming, and no grizzlies in Idaho.
8. Bob Ostler | December 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
It would be interesting to know what sort of pressure is being put on Ed Bangs. From what I know he supports management, but this really doesn’t sound like him.
9. Ralph Maughan | December 16th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
It’s pretty hard for one bureaucrat to stand up to a department loaded with ideological political appointees and/or those with no ethics.
The Department of Interior has had a real air of corruption about during the Bush Administration with ethics investigations into several key political appointments.
That why it is good the conservation organizations have lawyers to keep them from wandering too far from law during the death throes of this Administration.
10. Tim Z. | December 18th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Ralph have you ever met or spoken with Ed Bangs? I have heard rumors that he is really not the right person to manage wolf recovery as he is not all that sympathic to the wolf. I have never been able to substantiate that however.
11. Ralph Maughan | December 18th, 2006 at 10:10 am
I’ve talked with Ed many times. He’s sympathetic to the wolf, but he is strong in his views. He managed wolves very much like he told me he was going to in a meeting I had with him in Helena way back in late 1993.
What’s going on today, however, I think is not Ed, but stuff from the top. There was little discussion when Dale Hall became head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but he was responsible for the near collapse of the Mexican wolf restoration program when he was head of that region. Hall headed up that region of the Service.
I talked with one biologist who interviewed for the job heading up the Mexican wolf program. After talking with Hall, he withdrew his application, and told me Hall was a &^%!@ and a @%^((*%$. More profanity followed.
Hall is in bed with the extractive industry. On top of that, all of the political ranks of Interior are hostile to wolves.
BigHornRam said:
Actually it is Hagener.
I haven't seen anywhere where Jeff said the Feds were the problem (other than the lack of an adequate plan in WY is not a reason to prohibit delisting in MT). Could be, but all I have ever heard from him was for Wyoming to get their plan approved so ID and MT are not held hostage.As for your question,
"All the wolf huggers here said that the problem with Wyomings management plan was the "dual classification status".
I don't ever remember stating this. If I have, bring it to my attention. If someone else stated it, you will have to ask them.
As for why the USFWS waited until after the election, hell if I know. I can speculate as well as you can, however that doesn't really amount to a hill of beans.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Thanks for the spelling correction Miller....no wonder I couldn't find "Hagner" in search! The quote I was looking for is not exactly stated the way I thought it was, I apologize for that. Here it is, you can interpet it how you like. I think he is not overly happy with the feds. in this politically sensitive statement however.
FWP wants to see wolves delisted so it can begin to use hunting and trapping to manage the population, Hagener said. The agency has been frustrated by the federal government's unwillingness to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho, where management plans have been accepted, because Wyoming's management plan has been rejected.
I also relieze that you keep most of your hand reguarding wolves fairly close, not giving out much opinion, just correcting other peoples loose facts. I haven't seen you comment on whether or not YOU agree with Wyomings plan or what parts you disagree. Whether or not you agree with Idaho's wolf cull plan. Or comments on many other conflicting wolf issues. So let us know where your coming from.
Why FWS waited until after the elections is important.....this whole issue is about politics. Check out some of the kook dialog I posted from the wolf hugger site if you don't believe me. They rant on like Buzz and Ithaca do all the time here. Do you think Ralph Maughan and company are going to be allies when it comes to delisting? At least when someone here starts ranting from the extreme right like Middleton there are plenty to set him straight. Do you see any wolf hugger setting David Aiken's above rant straight? That's the opposition we face if you do indeed want delisting of wolves.
FWP wants to see wolves delisted so it can begin to use hunting and trapping to manage the population, Hagener said. The agency has been frustrated by the federal government's unwillingness to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho, where management plans have been accepted, because Wyoming's management plan has been rejected.
I also relieze that you keep most of your hand reguarding wolves fairly close, not giving out much opinion, just correcting other peoples loose facts. I haven't seen you comment on whether or not YOU agree with Wyomings plan or what parts you disagree. Whether or not you agree with Idaho's wolf cull plan. Or comments on many other conflicting wolf issues. So let us know where your coming from.
Why FWS waited until after the elections is important.....this whole issue is about politics. Check out some of the kook dialog I posted from the wolf hugger site if you don't believe me. They rant on like Buzz and Ithaca do all the time here. Do you think Ralph Maughan and company are going to be allies when it comes to delisting? At least when someone here starts ranting from the extreme right like Middleton there are plenty to set him straight. Do you see any wolf hugger setting David Aiken's above rant straight? That's the opposition we face if you do indeed want delisting of wolves.
Similar threads
