Idaho Wolf Hunting....?

[BuzzH]

Cali,

Wrong, but nice try.

The Federal Government absolutely does have jurisdiction over Threatened and Endangered species. They also have jurisdiction over anadromous fish and migratory waterfowl.

They also have the ability to enforce Federal regulations regarding ALL wildlife under the Lacey Act.

 

[ERSS]

Will admit that Wyomings Management Plan has been a thorn in the side of this process all along, causing delays and basically giving those opposed to delisting the wolf plenty of ammunition through both actions and words.

BuzzH, You bring up a good solution. Allowing ID and MT to manage thier wolves, while maintaining federal control in WY, would send a message, and not completely hold up the process of delisting.

 

[drahthaar]

The point of "genetic exchange" is first and foremost what the plaintiffs wanted the injunction on. Its the most technical, and the part that can be drawn out the longest in court. It will be nearly impossible and the most costly to prove otherwise.
But if you want to say its all on WY, fine, whatever blows your skirt up, I don't care.

 

[drahthaar]

ERSS,

I dont think that anyone should have any more say on issues related to public land, public wildlife, etc. than anyone else. I would have thought someone with your stellar service to the United States would have realized that. I've got just shy of 18 years of civil service and I appreciate and expect all US citizens to get involved in these types of matters. It doesnt matter in the slightest that groups funded from outside the intermountain west get involved...they have the absolute right to direct/change or comment on policy related to federal issues.

Last I checked, it wasnt just the residents of MT, ID, or WY that pay federal taxes.

Unfortunately, perhaps, the EIS wasnt just as simple as..."when certain viable population levels were obtained we'll delist". Much more to it than that. In particular the State level plans...mainly Wyomings plan.

The bottom line is the USFWS is not the final say on FEDERAL law (ESA)...judges are. I believed, and still do believe, that Wyomings plan has always been a point of contention from the start. Wyoming has delayed the process through bull-headed self-righteousness. Its exactly what you're complaining about...SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (Cattlemen) running static on the process. They've done a wonderful job monkey-wrenching...so good, that I think the "huggers" should take notes.

I respect their right to lobby for their interest...but somehow when its done in kind by others with differing opinions...then its not fair? I dont know, kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

What I would have liked to have seen is for the USFWS to amend the EIS and allow wolf management to be given to MT and ID...while keeping control in Wyoming. Would have sent a message to Wyoming that if they can come up with a plan that is acceptable they too can have control while allowing ID and MT the right to manage wolves since their plans are not in question.

Wyoming Cattlemen and the crap plan Wyomign put together are as much to blame as anything for the injunction.

Its just easier and takes a lot less effort to blame the "huggers" when they are doing nothing more than assuring that the EIS process is followed to the letter.

Well, maybe MT and ID F&G dept. need to sue to get separated from WY in all of this. Can they even do that?

But wait, that would make too much sense.

 

[Turbo]

ERSS,

I dont think that anyone should have any more say on issues related to public land, public wildlife, etc. than anyone else.

Unless, of course, your a Judge.

 

[BuzzH]

Turbo,

The judge, no matter who they are, are required to uphold the law. By issuing the injunction, the Judge is simply saying that there is ample evidence that parts of the EIS and Delisting process have not been met and/or addressed.

Doesnt mean that the judge has more say...it means the judge is upholding the intent of the law. Doesnt even mean that judge wont be satisfied at trial that WY's plan is acceptable or that genetic exchange isnt happening. Just means that it wasnt addressed to the satisfaction of the law.

Thats the way the system works. I think that this type of thing was inevitable, but I also think its inevitable that control will ultimately be given to all three states. But, the only sticking point is going to be Wyoming. Wyoming has always been the problem and will be until they can come up with a better plan. The genetic exchange is pretty easy to prove with pack locations via radio collars, sightings, etc. I'm sure data already exists that shows wolf dispersal and migration patterns.

I personally wouldnt care what Wyoming had for a wolf plan if they were seperated from the other two states. The problem is now, Wyoming is effecting MT and ID. So, for that reason, IMO, MT and ID should be forcing Wyoming to comply so that all three states will have some control...rather than all three having no control.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Why? Were wolves delisted? Are they game animals or endangered animals? Reality based upon current arbitrary laws is one thing - but what is right? Why do the Feds have jurisdiction over some animals and not others? Migratory birds? What about migratory caribou, elk or deer herds that cross state lines? Why would residents of one state have more say on game than another, if game is on Federal land?

I dont think that anyone should have any more say on issues related to public land, public wildlife, etc. than anyone else.

But you have stated quite clearly that residents have more say on game, even on Federal land....

Situational ethics?

 

[BuzzH]

Cali,

It makes sense for the feds to control ES and migratory waterfowl.

In the case of ES, it would be an undue burden on the various state Governments to have to fund and deal with ES management.

Same with Migratory waterfowl, for obvious reasons dealing with nesting issues, flyway issues, season structures, etc. it makes more sense to manage under one roof than for each state to manage on their own. In particular when ducks and geese nest in Northern states and eventually end up in Southern States.

It would be tough to require MT, the Dakotas, etc. to provide nesting habitat for most species of ducks when there is very little if any hunting opportunity for some species. But, if the Feds manage it, and fund it, the ducks are managed in Montana, the Dakotas, etc. Again, it would be an undue burden on the Northern States that produce most of the waterfowl.

It makes perfect sense.

I also think I've been more than clear regarding the States right to manage as they fit. I dont think that non-resident hunters, etc. should be excluded from the right to address, comment, etc. on any wildlife issues they want in any state. The problem is, the States do have the ultimate say in regards to species, other than those controlled by the feds, to do what they want. Doesnt mean that NR hunters are not allowed to comment or lobby the various states for their particular interest.

Federal land management does not have anything to do with how the States management of game. Doesnt matter if the animals are on private land or public land. The feds simply dont have the authority to manage game even on federal land, thats been decided by law.

Maybe you missed this:

1st Session

S. 339
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005
Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.

(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.

(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--

(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;

(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or

(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I am aware of the above, and why it came into being as well. I am just not sure that I agree that it would be "an undue burden" for the states to manage ES, or that they get to pick and choose which wildlife they get to manage - ie: the revenue producing ones.

You state several opinions, above. I am just stating mine.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Why do the Feds have jurisdiction over some animals and not others? Migratory birds? What about migratory caribou, elk or deer herds that cross state lines?

Situational ethics?

Don't you have a brother that works for the USFW? Why not ask him?

And, aren't most of the migratory animals the Feds manage ones that migrate into Canada or into Mexico? (or Salmon, into International Waters...)

Maybe you should listen to your brother sometimes....

 

[BuzzH]

Calif. Hunter,

Who do you suppose would fund ES management if the feds were not in control?

You want to further burden the heavily taxed citizens of the various states that have ES within their borders?

Also, think of this...we cant get agreement between THREE states (MT, ID, and WY) how to manage ONE species (wolf) AFTER delisting.

Can you imagine the circus that would be created if each state had to come up with seperate management plans to address each individual species on the ES list?

Wow, you think the courts are busy now...would be childs play to what it would be if states managed and controlled ES and Migratory waterfowl.

 

[TheTone]

The genetic exchange is being demonstrated all the time along all three states borders. Between the border packs which den in one state and spend parts of the year in others as well as collared wolves that are being "lost" only to be found in a pack in another state when that state scans its frequency.

I'm bummed about this, I really thought the states had a good legal footing, just kind of burned me on the whole process. Wolf reintroduction has clearly worked, I was hoping to see the rest of the system work as well. Hopefully Wyoming will step up with a real plan now.

 

[drahthaar]

The genetic exchange is being demonstrated all the time along all three states borders. Between the border packs which den in one state and spend parts of the year in others as well as collared wolves that are being "lost" only to be found in a pack in another state when that state scans its frequency.

I'm bummed about this, I really thought the states had a good legal footing, just kind of burned me on the whole process. Wolf reintroduction has clearly worked, I was hoping to see the rest of the system work as well. Hopefully Wyoming will step up with a real plan now.

Yes that is interesting about the "lost" wolves. I have been feeding info to the local wolf biologist about two collared wolves. One he thought was lost showed up in another pack on my trail cam. He said the collar on that wolf was just dead. Then another collared wolf that I had on my cams has turned up AWOL. I hope he shows up somewhere in ID, but most likely he probably went to Canada. Hopefully he wasn't just shot, but the guy has flown several times into Canada and west toward ID, the wolf has left the area or got shot.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Don't you have a brother that works for the USFW? Why not ask him?

Yeah, he is a biologist in the ES division. I'd like to see him unemployed. I just spent a week with him in WA, visiting bull trout sites, dams and fish ladders, etc.

There may be less controversy and court action if the Feds were not involved in the wolf issue and would leave regulation to the states. I can understand the migratory or international species. Where do you draw the line, though, as to what the States regulate on non-migratory species? The States can regulate (mis-manage like Wyoming with the wolves?) something to endangered status and then the Feds take over? (Controversy generates lots of posts!)

 

[1_pointer]

Federal land management does not have anything to do with how the States management of game. Doesnt matter if the animals are on private land or public land. The feds simply dont have the authority to manage game even on federal land, thats been decided by law.

To a point. More than one office has an MOU with the state declaring thier intent to manage the habitat to help meet the states population goals for some species...

Cali- The only reason the Feds have a say in some species is because of their protection under ESA. You can appeal the decision to list or not list species for this level of protection. Only way around that is to change the law; in which case you better hurry as November is just around the corner... I like the current model of managing ES due to this part of the process. I am unaware of any state agency that is required to have an appeal process to protect (or not) a species. And the funding nightmare is a real problem. You think we'd be putting out as many condors or black footed ferrets if the individual states were footing the bill? I don't...

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Why do I want black-footed ferrets to kill the prairie dogs in Arizona - fewer for me to shoot? Why do I want condors - a stupid species that should only live in zoos - flying around and giving the eco-nazis and anti-gun crwod an excuse to ban lead cored bullets? They were dying out before the population explosion in So Cal.

How many Federal lawsuits prevented you from bear hunting in Idaho because New Jersey or some other state banned bear hunting? No, if states are responsible for game management, then they should be responsible for all non-migratory species. I'm just one person and cannot change the law. That does not mean I have to agree with every law. Do you agree with them all?

 

[1_pointer]

That does not mean I have to agree with every law.

'Tis true, you don't have to agree with the law. Doesn't mean it's still not a pretty good deal (see any Bald Eagles)...

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Not recently - don't they migrate?

 

[A-con]

Regarding the current order to put wolves back on the ES list because of a law suite, Buzz says;

Thats the way the system works. I think that this type of thing was inevitable, .

As usual, Buzz has fantastic hindsite.

Yet I made the exact same point years ago, and when the wolf seasons were approved, Buzz argued that it was a done deal and told me;

“Since it once again looks like I was right on the wolf delisting,”

“How did that happen? I thought they'd never be off the list...

“Hows the crow A-con?”.

I guess if you want to read ALL sides of the issue, all you need to do is read Buzz, since at one time or another he has been on all sides of the issue.

Dinners ready Buzz, crow for you.

 

[ERSS]

Anyone willing to take a shot at predicting what is going to happen from here...?

I see, in the crystal ball, no wolf hunting in 2008, more legal battles through out the fall/spring/summer.

I choose to be optomistic and think, the states will have control over management by this time next year, with hunting seasons that will be unsuccessfully challenged in court.

Also, the obvious....Wolf populations will continue to grow exponentially....and illegal wolf kills will double.