Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Montana Wolf Plan Upsets Enviro Groups

BigHornyRam

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
433
Location
T Falls, MT
Groups assail proposed wolf plan
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian



Animal Protection Institute says species would be 'cut off life support'

Environmentalists and animal rights activists on Friday lambasted the state of Montana's proposed wolf management plan, saying it would renew "the very threats that nearly wiped out wolves in the lower 48 states."

In formal comments on the state's draft plan, Animal Protection Institute program coordinator Brian Vincent insisted that "the wolf remains in critical condition" and needs continued protection under the federal Endangered Species Act - not delisting and a transfer of management authority to the state.




"The Endangered Species Act has helped resuscitate wolves," Vincent said. "The Montana plan would essentially cut off life support and throw wolves out of the emergency room before they're recovered."

Same came the comments from the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

At the Alliance, wolf recovery coordinator Renee Van Camp said the state's proposed management plan is based on politics, not sound science. Wolf survival demands a population of 415 to 875 animals in Montana, she said, not the 183 wolves counted at the end of 2002.

It's not even appropriate to consider removing wolves from the endangered species list, Van Camp said. Wolves exist in just 2 percent of their native territory, not the "significant" amount required under the Endangered Species Act, she said.

"Unfortunately, legal and illegal killing of wolves will continue until extensive education and outreach actually begins to make a difference," Van Camp said. "We must compensate with a scientifically proven viable population of genetically healthy wolves that can successfully sustain legal, illegal and natural mortality and still increase to viable levels.

"Claims of recovery are premature, and wolves should remain on the endangered species list under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management at this time."

The Animal Protection Institute took a slightly different approach in its critique. Montana's management plan, Vincent said, is "an insidious plan that will allow killing of wolves."

The group is particularly opposed to sport hunting, trapping or any lethal control of wolves, he said. Instead, Vincent encouraged Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to prohibit hunting or trapping, prohibit any lethal control to conserve elk, deer or other wildlife for hunters, and improve public outreach efforts needed to educate Montanans about wolf behavior and biology.

As is, he said, Montana's wolf management plans are "inhumane, unnecessary and not based on sound science."

Friday was the final day of comment-taking on the draft environmental impact statement written by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in preparation for state wolf management. Federal biologists believe wolf populations are sufficiently healthy that the species can be removed from the endangered species list.

For that delisting to occur, though, the states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho must first adopt wolf management plans. In the meantime, wolves will remain listed - and protected - as threatened species.

Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268.
 
What needs to happen is what was compromised in the original wolf plan.

The plan called for delisting to occur when "x" number of wolves or wolf packs were reached.

The numbers have been reached, the plan was agreed upon by a majority...on with the delisting. The USFWS should not give a crap what the enviro groups say...as long as the states maintain the populations at levels agreed upon by the original plan. Further, any judge who doesnt uphold the law as per the original wolf reintroduction plan should be immediately removed from his/her duties...a deal is a deal.
 
Very well said Buzz...
smile.gif
 
Even when you get a compliment your just a nasty, sour, soul...What's wrong with that....
smile.gif

Or is it you just need to have some one to try and beat on, instead of just graciously accepting some things! Not every one or every thing is against you!!!
wink.gif
 
Gee, you dont have much of a sense of humor either...thats a real shock.
eek.gif


<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-11-2003 11:13: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
 
Good call Buzz,

"Further, any judge who doesnt uphold the law as per the original wolf reintroduction plan should be immediately removed from his/her duties...a deal is a deal."

Judge Molloy has yet to decide against the enviromentalists on any suit yet. When he sides with the enviro groups on the wolf issue, which he will, he's outta there!

Paul
 
Psst Buzz,

Don't be so rash with your statements.

"Further, any judge who doesnt uphold the law as per the original wolf reintroduction plan should be immediately removed from his/her duties."

Your going to need all the tree hugging liberal judges you can get on the bench to pull off that dam breeching idea. I'm sure any judge that would keep the wolves from being delisted would be OK with dam breeching.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-12-2003 17:06: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>
 
I love it. Wolf survival will require 415 to ah, ah.. a....uh ....Oh...around 875 wolves in Montana prior to delisting. Well ya, that's a pretty good number. And these idiots talk about others not using sound science. What a bunch of dickheads.
confused.gif
 
Psst, Paul, Your full of shit.

I aint an unreasonable person Paul, that kind of makes you mad doesnt it?

My original comments on the wolf reintroduction clearly outlined the problem we are about to have.

I stated in my original comments that its absolutely critical for the USFWS to follow the guidelines set forth and agreed to by ALL GROUPS...in particular when delisting started.

If the USFWS and the EA are to gain any amount of public support, they must, and I mean MUST follow their own agreement. That means telling the Fund for Wolves or People for the Ethical treatment of wolves, etc. to take a flying leap.

I commented in favor of wolf reintroduction but only under the presumption that the wolf plan would be followed to the letter.

If the USFWS fails to act accordingly, they can expect no more support from me on similar issues in the future....

Oh, and about the judges, I dont think you need a liberal judge to see the salmon issue, just a judge with more intelligence than you, which wouldnt take much.
wink.gif
 
Buzz,

Here's a little sample of one of Elkgunners posts to show you how the game is played:

"I decided that my interests would be better served by giving the money to the attorneys who are WINNING this fight and are going to get the damn dams breached."

You make this comment:

"I commented in favor of wolf reintroduction but only under the presumption that the wolf plan would be followed to the letter."

And you say I'm the stupid one?

Kinda sucks being on the losing team doesn't it.

Paul
 
Paul, I'm on the losing team?

I dont think so, maybe you forgot that wolves are in MT, ID, and WY, just like I wanted them to be?

How did it go for you trying to keep wolves from being introduced?......loser.

The wolf plan, to date, has been followed.

Like I stated before, until the USFWS fails to comply with their agreement...then I'll support their efforts.

Oh, and on the comment by elkgunner....I agree with him too...I put my money into worthwhile efforts.
 
Buzz,

You better get your $2.57 over to elkgunners lawyer buddy so he can get started right away. That will buy you about 2 minutes. Enough time for him to scratch his nuts and fart a couple of times. Good luck!

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-15-2003 05:59: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>
 
Hey Paul,

I actually give $2.62 for the Cause....

If you remember where you clipped my post from, it was that I did not feel the need to fund Solar and Wind power, as my interest is to have more Salmon and Steelhead to catch.

I struggle to see any flaw in that logic. I would guess that ALL sportsmen want more game on the mountain, and more fish in the creek.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,155
Messages
1,949,074
Members
35,056
Latest member
mmarshall173
Back
Top