I think Wy is doing a good job. they are holding out for as long as they can. WHAT is going to change if they do get delisted? no much except the states will have to pay for the feds baby, as it is now the feds are paying the most for their own baby. So deal with it all you folks that want your say in western issues, pay for it. There really isn't much to gain to have them delisted, except all the hassles.
Killing Machines - Wolves
- Thread starter Leanwolf
- Start date
BigHornyRam
New member
Lost,
You hit the nail on the head! If we come up with a watered down wolf management plan just to get it through delisting, what do we gain? We might as well have the feds continue to manage and pick up the tab as well. The management plan is only one of many fronts the wolf wackos will attack in an effort to block delisting.
Lately they have been going back to the legitamacy of the early rule change. At first the 3 areas needed at least 10 packs each in order to start the delisting process. Early on it became apparent that NW Montana would not be able to support 10 packs so the rules were amended to 30 packs minimum in the 3 areas combined. You can bet that this issue will be brought up again and again as we get closer to delisting.
Those here that claim Wyoming is holding up delisting are about as stupid as Judy Martz. Get a clue Judy.
Paul
You hit the nail on the head! If we come up with a watered down wolf management plan just to get it through delisting, what do we gain? We might as well have the feds continue to manage and pick up the tab as well. The management plan is only one of many fronts the wolf wackos will attack in an effort to block delisting.
Lately they have been going back to the legitamacy of the early rule change. At first the 3 areas needed at least 10 packs each in order to start the delisting process. Early on it became apparent that NW Montana would not be able to support 10 packs so the rules were amended to 30 packs minimum in the 3 areas combined. You can bet that this issue will be brought up again and again as we get closer to delisting.
Those here that claim Wyoming is holding up delisting are about as stupid as Judy Martz. Get a clue Judy.
Paul
Muledeer4me
New member
Wolf,great Post.
You not only got it,you put it down nice and clear.
When you start looking into it more and following some of the link's into the wolf reintroduction you start seeing how it fit's into the( campain against the rancher to get them off of fedreal land's)as well as the push by some of the group's to close off more land to all of us.
Check out most of the radical animal rights/invironmental site's and starting looking at the wording most of them use.
Im not against large predator's,im against how it's being used and promoted and lied about,and the callous attuide these org. and some people have toward's familys that are being effected by having these large predators forced on them.
You have made some great posts that show the difference between having them and being able to hunt them /over what has happened here in putting them into area's where they have no option except to getting thereself into treouble because of people and lifestock.
Not only have a number of the pack's had to be killed,but the effect to the rancher's and these small towns has been hard as well.
You not only got it,you put it down nice and clear.
When you start looking into it more and following some of the link's into the wolf reintroduction you start seeing how it fit's into the( campain against the rancher to get them off of fedreal land's)as well as the push by some of the group's to close off more land to all of us.
Check out most of the radical animal rights/invironmental site's and starting looking at the wording most of them use.
Im not against large predator's,im against how it's being used and promoted and lied about,and the callous attuide these org. and some people have toward's familys that are being effected by having these large predators forced on them.
You have made some great posts that show the difference between having them and being able to hunt them /over what has happened here in putting them into area's where they have no option except to getting thereself into treouble because of people and lifestock.
Not only have a number of the pack's had to be killed,but the effect to the rancher's and these small towns has been hard as well.
Ithaca 37
New member
Well, if WY isn't holding up the delisting , who is?
Very well said wolf
Cousin IT,
My take is, The wyoming folks relize that the wolf huggers are just waiting, when delisting starts they will hang it up in the courts forever. So why not take a stand and try to make a statement.
I applaud them!!!
Cousin IT,
My take is, The wyoming folks relize that the wolf huggers are just waiting, when delisting starts they will hang it up in the courts forever. So why not take a stand and try to make a statement.
I applaud them!!!
this is from the study done by the independent institute. It explains what will hapen when delisting finally starts.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Based on their arguments for large minimum viable populations in a host of other species—the northern spotted owl and the grizzly bear being the best-known examples—it is difficult to believe that environmental groups have not voiced similar concerns over wolf recovery goals in the West. After a federal court ruled that 2,180 pairs of, or approximately 4,500, spotted owls were necessary to meet ESA requirements (Boyce and Irwin 1990:134) and environmentalists sued demanding 2,000 grizzlies, why would only 300 wolves be enough? It appears that the 100-wolf recovery figures are little more than an elaborate confidence game orchestrated by the federal agencies and others.
The government proposed 100 wolves in each area, knowing that the numbers would not be enough to meet ESA requirements of minimum viable population size, and environmental groups did not object, knowing that 300 wolves would raise less political opposition than 1,500 to 2,000 wolves. Wolves arrive and increase to 300. The government moves to delist. Environment-alists sue and win. The wolf population is allowed to reach 1,500 or more. Environmentalists are happy, the federal agencies are happy, and the public realizes—too late—what has happened.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Based on their arguments for large minimum viable populations in a host of other species—the northern spotted owl and the grizzly bear being the best-known examples—it is difficult to believe that environmental groups have not voiced similar concerns over wolf recovery goals in the West. After a federal court ruled that 2,180 pairs of, or approximately 4,500, spotted owls were necessary to meet ESA requirements (Boyce and Irwin 1990:134) and environmentalists sued demanding 2,000 grizzlies, why would only 300 wolves be enough? It appears that the 100-wolf recovery figures are little more than an elaborate confidence game orchestrated by the federal agencies and others.
The government proposed 100 wolves in each area, knowing that the numbers would not be enough to meet ESA requirements of minimum viable population size, and environmental groups did not object, knowing that 300 wolves would raise less political opposition than 1,500 to 2,000 wolves. Wolves arrive and increase to 300. The government moves to delist. Environment-alists sue and win. The wolf population is allowed to reach 1,500 or more. Environmentalists are happy, the federal agencies are happy, and the public realizes—too late—what has happened.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Similar threads
- Locked
