Idaho plans to Slaughter 51 Wolves

[ELKCHSR]

Broad generalizations made by a ditch-digger...and thats the truth.

Butz the Putz, I know you don't like to be called a liar, but here is one you just posted and it’s fresh in every ones minds...

I guess now I can call you a LIAR…. Cool... I like that...

Butz the Putz has no Nutz is a LIAR, kinda has a ring to it…

In reality, you have no idea of what I do, besides fight fires for the summer, what a self pretentious dickweed…

LOL... After reading your whole post, it’s obvious that you would have liked a little more than just a quick generalization from me. !!!Tough titties little furry booby!!!

As with any thing else, you can't just put every scenario into one little box as you are in the habit of doing.

Yes, all of what you stated was accurate, and here comes the butt... Well, you’re the Butt, but I digress, you’re not the topic here, as much as you would like to be you egotistical snob.

As a general rule over FS ground that has marketable timber on it and is starting to rot (You seem to be the genius here), I have a question about, and would like a little more clarification besides just a bunch of diatribe and insipient babble (Your starting to sound like Bob LeBlah )

With out the use of fires in a big way (we have been over it and reality dictates it will never be allowed to happen on the scale you would like, (politics you know)

Also, with the amount of moneys left to the governmental bureaucracies to utilize every year for maintenance (By your own admonition) there just isn't enough to do the job of hiring tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of extra people every year to get a handle on this.

Or by utilizing the forest products as was first designated by our original forests mandates.

Here comes the question!!!

It's a doozy, but I'm betting you have absolutely no answer for it, I'm also thinking most will already know what I'm going to ask, you self centered hairy little toad.

With no fire, mechanical, or use of man to maintain a "Healthy" forest,

????WHATS NEXT????

Now in your infinite wisdom ol' Doctor Butz the Putz has no Nutz is a LIAR....

What would be next, we can’t just leave it alone, and totally stay out of it as you would like.

That would only be self serving to a few elitists who would like to see all lands west of the Mississippi shut off to human habitation (well accept them of course and you I’m guessing) and left to its own devises…

What is the answer???

It really bites when reality is rubbed in your upturned nose, doesn’t it?

P.S. Call me what you want, it really doesn’t bother me, but I would like to see you come up with a little more than #*^@#* you on this topic please.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Pardon me for trying to get this topic back on wolves, but this was in today's paper. One step closer!
===================================================

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission on Friday unanimously approved the department's plan to kill wolves in the Lolo Elk Zone in northcentral Idaho to bolster struggling elk herds.

The plan will now go out for public comment and could then be forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for final approval.

F&G will hold public hearings on the wolf proposal in Boise and Lewiston in February and will post it on F&G's Web site for public comment for those who can't make the meetings. Dates for those hearings will be set in the next two weeks.

"If this seems like a quick decision on this, it's not," said commission chairman Cameron Wheeler of Ririe.

He went on to say that F&G and commissioners have spent years looking at wolf and elk data before preparing the proposal.

F&G staff is currently having scientists outside the agency review the proposal, and after gathering public comment, they will present a final proposal to the commission.

Commissioners will not have to vote again before sending a final proposal to the Fish and Wildlife Service, but they can stop it at any time.

The proposal calls for killing up to 75 percent of the wolves in the Lolo Zone to bolster struggling elk herds there.

Up to 43 wolves would be killed there initially, and then the wolf population would be maintained at 15-23 animals for the next five years.

Commissioner Gary Power of Salmon, who has studied wolves in the Salmon area, said the proposal "is focused on one particular area, and I think there's a lot we can learn from it."

Biologists would monitor how elk in the Lolo Zone respond after wolves are killed, and compare it to the adjacent Selway zone, where elk also would be monitored, but no wolves will be killed.

F&G took over day-to-day management of wolves earlier this month, but it does not have full authority over their management.

The agency can kill wolves that attack livestock, and it can issue kill permits to ranchers whose livestock is being attacked, but it cannot kill wolves to benefit other wildlife without federal approval.

Assuming the wolf proposal goes forward, Fish and Wildlife Service will review it and decide whether to approve it based on its scientific merits, not how the public feels about it.

"The key is if it's a good, science-based proposal," said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service's office in Helena, Mont. "Strong emotion isn't going to affect this, strong information is."

 

[BuzzH]

Cheese,

You really should stay out of discussions that you know nothing about...like anything that has to do with forestry or forest health. You dont know jack about either.

Cheese said, "Or by utilizing the forest products as was first designated by our original forests mandates.

What forest mandates are you reading? or perhaps a better question would be WHAT WERE YOU SMOKING when you came up with that dumb statement?

Try reading NFMA sometime, the RPA, or a forest plan. You'll find that the intent of even the earliest forest mandates and resource policy was not to simply "utilize forest products". In fact, they were quite the opposite.

Really, any further discussion with you is pointless on these types of issues, you dont even understand the basics. Without that, anything more complex is a waste of your time, and most certainly a waste of mine.

I'm just thankful that the public lands agencies require people with college degrees to make the tough decisions on forest and range management. That keeps boneheads like you out of public lands management.

The FS and BLM has places for people like you though, you're just smart enough to swing a pulaski. Thats as much forest management as you'll ever be involved with. So, enjoy it and be thankful you're even that involved.

 

[huntinfool]

Sorry guys I realy did try to post that artical, still not sure why it wont work.
Thanks for posting that artical at lease some one can get it right around here......lol

 

[ELKCHSR]

You really should stay out of discussions that you know nothing about...like anything that has to do with forestry or forest health. You dont know jack about either.

And Bob LeBlah II lashes out with ferocious viciousness only a silly maniac would attempt...

Pssssst.. (Said in a quiet whisper) any body think ol' Butz the Putz got thru to any one???

Keep blathering away you overzealous nutz job, your making yourself look like a goofy maniacal whack job...

Oh, and getting back to topic, I think we should start planning on a recipe for C. lupus, I think we have time to make up a great book on the subject…

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz and IT,

What do you guy's think about Idaho FWP's plan to slaughter up to 51 wolves in the Clearwater? This isn't a hunt, it's a state run masacure. I thought you guy's where from the Ralph camp......the wolves aren't killing the elk, it's the poor habitat that's responsible. Why is Idaho still allowing unlimited elk hunting in the Clearwater when the elk populations are so low?

 

[1_pointer]

Thanks for the info guys.

Buzz- The little bit of research I was able to do since my last post mirrors what you posted. Nothing like catching a steelhead and chasing with a beer at the Woodlot!

Do you ever fish Orofino or do you stay on the Salmon?

 

[BuzzH]

pointer,

The first steelhead I ever caught was in the N.Fork Clearwater directly across the river from the Woodlot, just above the bridge.

I've fished the entire stretch of River from the hatchery at White Sands clear to Lewiston for either salmon or steelhead.

Any pictures of the steelhead...or the beer at the woodlot?

 

[1_pointer]

No pictures of the steelhead, it was a wildrun and so it never left the water. Sounds like you were on the North Fork. We spent most of our time on the Poleyard/Logyard hole. My pard likes the faster water.

I'm heading back over President's Day weekend to try again. Gotta love the $25 Nez Perce permit for the Clearwater!

Pictures of beer at the Woodlot would require some fast film and shutter speed!

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer,

The one thing I miss the most about not living in Missoula is fishing steelhead every weekend on either the clearwater or the salmon.

I've had some wild times fishing steelhead...the drive down hwy 12 has provided many an entertaining moment.

Heres the biggest fish I ever caught there in 20+ years of fishing...caught out of the poleyard hole. I caught several fish that were just as long, but none with quite the girth of this fish. He was just shy of 41 inches and weighed 20.6 pounds. Caught him on a 1/16th ounce orange jig. I kind of quit fishing the poleyard hole, I really dont like fishing a jig and bobber as much as bouncing. I'll do it there, as its about the only way to really effectively fish it. The tailout in that hole is pretty good at times bouncing corkies though.

Dont be afraid to fish some of the holes below the McGill...I've had my best days below Orifino. Wish I still lived in Missoula, I'd meet you there and share some of my favorite spots.

Anyway, congrats on the wild fish. I'd rather catch one wild fish than 5 hatchery reared mutants any day.

 

[TheTone]

Great fish Buzz. I can just about imagine some mid winter trips back and forth on 12 and over Lolo. I need to get some pics up on the fishing section of one I caught on thanksgiving this year. Not a monster by any means, but a good looking fish. I've actually never fished the clearwater above Lenore, but am going to hit the south fork a few times this year. Should be fun fishing them in a smaller, more wild river. I'm thinking you should be able to sight fish them to some extent.

 

[1_pointer]

NICE! That's a bit bigger than the one I caught. I'd guess he was about 15-17lbs. I didn't even see the bobber go down, just felt a tap and set the hook and he boiled straight into the air! The rest of the fight was melodramatic as he damn near swam right to us.

Actually, there was 4 guys at the tailend of the hole that caught 41 fish in three days! Hopefully the river will clear up a bit before next month... Gotta love a place to stay fo $15/night and that sells good tackle!

10hrs is a long way to drive to go fishing, but it sure is fun!

 

[BuzzH]

TheTone,

The South Fork is great fishing. I had a 14 fish day once on that little river.

Sight fishing is pretty much out most of the time (at least in the spring)...a touch of rain and that thing is cloudy.

If the main river near Orifino has too much color and the south fork is blown out, try fishing the main stem above the south fork...miller hole, clear creek, etc.

Pointer,

I'd bet money I know who some of those guys were that were fishing the tailout and hooked all those fish.

Also, not sure how much color the main had...but 16 inches visibility is all you need to hook steelhead...and 20-30 is ideal IMO...in particular as the river is dropping and clearing. If you can hit conditions like that (24 inches visibility on a river thats dropping and clearing), you'll make an absolute killing.

 

[1_pointer]

Don't know what the visibility was but it didn't look to silted and I couldn't see a mud line. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for good water and NO RAIN!

 

[TheTone]

Pointer, when are you coming back up to fish? I can try and let you know how the water is looking to some extent.

 

[1_pointer]

We'll be up over President's day weekend hell or high water! The water report would be great beta. Saturday night we'll be at the Corner Club in Moscow if your around.

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

Even though this somehow turned into a fishing thread~


Thursday, February 2, 2006 · Last updated 2:58 p.m. PT

Nez Perce Tribe opposes Idaho's plan to kill wolves to help elk

By JOHN MILLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

BOISE, Idaho -- An Indian tribe that's helped with gray wolf recovery efforts since their reintroduction to Idaho in 1995 says the state is moving too quickly with a plan to kill dozens of wolves to help restore elk herds on the border with Montana.

Rebecca Miles, chairwoman of the Nez Perce in Lapwai, said tribal wolf managers aren't convinced studies of elk herds in the Clearwater River basin support a plan by state Department of Fish and Game to reduce wolf numbers in region to as few as 15, from about 60 animals now.

According to the agency, wolves are responsible for about 35 percent of recorded elk cow deaths since 2002 in two hunting units in the region.

Wolves were confirmed to have killed eight of 25 elk cows that died, from among 64 adult elk cows captured and radio collared between 2002 and 2004, the study showed.

The Nez Perce, as well as some conservation groups, say the evidence isn't conclusive that depredations are devastating elk numbers.

They argue the agency should focus on restoring habitat, not killing wolves.



"It is junk science," Aaron Miles, the tribe's natural resource manager, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "There's no peer review. It's jumping from one conclusion to the next."

Fish and Game officials held a public hearing in Boise on Thursday to introduce their plan.

A similar hearing is planned for next Tuesday in Lewiston.

Federal officials still must approve the state's proposal to kill wolves.

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Helena, Mont., has said his agency will judge the proposal based on its technical merits, not political expediency.

The plan to kill wolves is among Idaho's first actions since it took over day-to-day oversight of the state's roughly 600 wolves during a Jan. 5 signing ceremony between Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

Miles contends the state is relenting to political pressure from groups including hunters and ranchers who want to see more active wolf control.

Moving too quickly with the control plan also could incite lawsuits from conservation groups, he said.

For instance, on Jan. 24, eight groups, including The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and The Humane Society of the United States, announced they plan to sue within 60 days.

State Fish and Game officials concede that hunters have been after them for more than a decade to more aggressively control wolf numbers they blame for reducing big game herds.

Still, the agency says its studies on elk herd depredations support wolf removals - as well as further efforts to improve habitat in the region straddling U.S. Highway 12.

"Wolves are the biggest single issue we've heard from hunters, almost since the day of reintroduction. They're the folks that pay the bills at Fish and Game. So we listen to what they say," Fish and Game Wildlife Bureau chief Jim Unsworth said Thursday. "But we wouldn't have come forward with the proposal if we weren't making a pretty strong case now."

Idaho would prefer to hold a controlled hunt for wolves, Unsworth said.

Until the predators undergo federal delisting, however, no such hunts are allowed.

Though Idaho and Montana have federally approved wolf management plans, no delisting can occur until a similar management plan in Wyoming wins approval.

Until now, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have rejected plans from that state that allow its wolves to be shot on sight.

"Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies have exceeded their recovery goals and are biologically ready to be delisted," said H. Dale Hall, the federal agency's director, in a statement on Thursday. "The potential delisting cannot be finalized until Wyoming's wolf management plan has been approved."

There are more than 900 wolves in the three states.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"The potential delisting cannot be finalized until Wyoming's wolf management plan has been approved."

That's been the problem for a couple years now, and you can blame it all on the stupid welfare ranchers who control the WY Legislature. They'd rather try to fight the ESA than write a wolf management plan that is acceptable. ID and MT did it, why can't Wyoming?

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

Posted 2/1/2006 10:30 PM Updated 2/2/2006 4:35 AM
Wolves may drop off endangered list
By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY
DENVER — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will issue a proposal Thursday to remove gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the Endangered Species List, a decade after they returned to the region.

Federal dispute with Wyoming may delay the delisting of gray wolves.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife, AP file

However, a dispute over Wyoming's plan to manage its wolves once federal protection is removed may keep the proposal in limbo.

Ed Bangs, head of the government's wolf recovery program, said Wednesday that the animals have recovered so well that the agency is no longer equipped to manage so many — about 1,000 gray wolves in parts of six states.

The species was nearly wiped out in the continental USA by westward settlement. The population has soared since biologists released 66 wolves from Canada in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995-96. Another protected population of gray wolves lives in northern Minnesota. The species is not threatened in Alaska.

Bangs said the proposal cannot go forward until Wyoming revises its plan for managing the 225 wolves in the state once protection is lifted. Wyoming's plan would allow unlimited killing of wolves in areas outside the northwest corner of the state. Bangs calls that "unregulated human persecution."

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal said the state does not intend to change its plan. He said today's announcement is "political blackmail" to pressure the state. Plans in Idaho and Montana, where most of the other wolves live, are in place.

Freudenthal said Bangs "is simplifying the issue quite a bit." He said federal officials refuse to take responsibility for managing wolves in Yellowstone once they are off the endangered list.

Last summer, Wyoming petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species List.

The agency and conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, consider the wolf's comeback one of the biggest successes of the Endangered Species Act. The 1973 law has helped save bald eagles and other rare species.

Some of the groups are skeptical the states are ready to manage the wolves.

"This is premature. This would be a real tragedy," says Jamie Rappaport Clark, former head of Fish and Wildlife and now executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife. Her group and others also oppose Idaho's plan as insufficient.

Wolves thrive in central Idaho, where Bangs estimates 550 live. Ranchers, hunters and groups such as the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition contend that wolves kill wildlife, livestock and pets.

Ron Gillett, the coalition chairman, said the proposed delisting is "a joke" because states still can't manage the wolves "without checking with the feds first." He said the group will file a proposed ballot initiative in Idaho today pledging "to get rid of the wolves."



Looks like it won't be long before we can hunt wolves!