Thank WY for more wolves!!

[Ithaca 37]

"Idaho and Montana officials are concerned that the Wyoming Legislature´s initial refusal to change the state´s wolf management plan will delay the animal´s delisting.
“The longer wolves remain listed, the more wolves there will be,” said Steve Nedeau, the state coordinator for large carnivores in Idaho´s Department of Fish and Game. “Wyoming is causing the wolf populations to increase in the other states.”

Montana shares the same frustration, said Carolyn Sime, Montana´s Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf planning coordinator.

“Montanans are extremely concerned about the delays in delisting,” Sime said. “They´d like to get there as soon as possible.”........."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Story.asp?ID=61774

Let's hear from you wolf haters how the enviros are holding up the delisting. Or have you given up on that half assed criticism?

Anyone with a brain knows what's holding up the delisting, and it sure ain't the environmentalists.

 

[BHR]

“Wyoming is causing the wolf populations to increase in the other states.”

Maybe I'm a bit naive here, but I thought the population increase was due to wolves breeding wolves and having pups. Is Wyoming involved in Wolf breeding? How about Minnesota? Is Wyoming causing the wolf populations to increase in Minnesota? How about the people who pushed for reintroduction? Didn't they have something to do with causing wolf populations to increase? And with all the rednecks in Wyoming practicing SSS, and the gummint agents smoking the wolves left and right, I would think the wolf population there would be declining, not increasing.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, Please ask someone else to read the article and explain it to you.

BTW, "Montana has 10 known breeding pairs and about 182 wolves, Sime said."

You sure are making a big deal outta 182 wolves in Montana. You have thousands of mountain lions and I never hear you whining about THEM! You think 182 lions eat more elk than a few thousand lions?

 

[BHR]

Itchy,

You are the moron who first posted this pile of dung titled "Thank Wyoming for More Wolves". Sounds to me like you are the one whining about wolves.

So if Ms. Sime's figures are correct and Montana only has 10 breeding pairs, that would mean we need 5 more breeding pairs before we can even think about having an open season on the mutts. So in reality, we should be thanking Montana's management plan for more wolves. That and Ms. Simes inability to count. Seams to me that we have plenty of time for Wyoming to play out their lawsuit after all.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, Seems (Notice the proper spelling, BHR?) you don't like the article. Can you refute it?

 

[BHR]

IT,

The article is what it is. A cut and paste job trying to make Wyoming look like the bad guy. No mention anywhere in it about the status of Minnesota delisting that reached it's objectives many years ago, but has yet to get the wolves delisted there. Maybe the people in Wyoming are aware of this fact, and are going with lawsuit route because of it?

If Ms. Sime's thinks that Montana only has 10 breeding pairs in the entire state, then I certainly do not want her to be the one in charge of counting the wolf populations and setting the wolf hunt quotas. I do not believe she is serious about getting a hunting and trapping season going once they become delisted. I've met her at several wolf meetings and don't trust her.

This article is mostly a bunch of whining from a couple of individuals who will most likely lose their wolf coordinator positions if Wyomings lawsuit wins. And from what I hear, there is reason for them to be concerned.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, That's not refuting it. And just because the article didn't go into a lot of side issues you would have liked to see doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure the author wasn't trying to tell you what you want to hear. Don't you know what "refute" means?

 

[Bullhound]

IT,

Still up to the same old shit aren't ya. You've been telling everybody for so long that wolves don't really creat a problem I don't think you really know witch way you want to go. It's the cats for sure. Cats have been here IT. They weren't just introduced in this state, were they?How many "confirmed" packs of dogs do we have now IT? The "experts" are admitting to at least 35 now. Are you starting to think maybe it IS A FREAKIN PROBLEM????????????

I agree, it is too bad that that Wyoming took this course. I wish they would have given the same plan we gave and got it accepted. Then they, and we (Idaho and Montana) could start mowing down enough wolves to get them under controll. If the feds didn't think the states were doing things right, let them be the ones to sue!

At least we would be saving some elk while the fight was taking place.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bull, I don't think I ever said wolves couldn't be a problem. What I've said is that if we're allowed to keep wolves at a reasonable level (enough to keep them delisted), we'll be able to deal with it. After all, 400 wolves can't possibly out eat 4000 lions, most of which are bigger than a wolf. If we can have 4000 lions and 20,000 bears in Idaho without any major problems I don't see why 400 wolves is going to hurt that much. At least not for those of us who know how to hunt deer and elk. It might cause a big problem for the rest of you.

 

[BHR]

Bullhound,

You said:

"I agree, it is too bad that that Wyoming took this course. I wish they would have given the same plan we gave and got it accepted. Then they, and we (Idaho and Montana) could start mowing down enough wolves to get them under controll"

Are you aware that the wolf huggers have serious problems with the Idaho plan as well and plan to sue if delisting proceeds?

Are you aware that according to Montana's wolf coordinator, that we have only ten breeding pairs? How can Montana "start mowing them down" if according to our wolf management plan, we need to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs and currently only have 10? Can delisting even proceed with only 10 pairs in Montana?

Patience, it's going to be a minimum of 5 years before you are going to be able to buy a wolf tag in Idaho.

 

[Bullhound]

IT,

Bears and Cats don't kill for fun do they? Freakin mutts do! A few short months ago, you were saying that the wolves aren't a problem and that they can't affect our ungulate herds any more than the cats and bears are. You may not want to admit you were wrong, but the fact is, you DO KNOW now that they can play hell on the herds. I don't mind hunting hard. That's what draws me (the challenge). There's a major difference between a challenge, and not being able to hunt someday cause there aint enough critters.

BHR,

I'm fully aware of what Idaho's plan says. It's been accepted. The point I was attempting to make was that it may be better to give the feds what they want to get the dam things delisted. Then, if the states see that they need to change the plan of attack to save our herds, so be it, change it. Take care of our herds number one. If the feds don't like how things are going, let them try to come back at us. At least this way, the dogs may be under controll somewhat and some elk herds may be saved, while the feds bitch about the three states not sticking to their original plans. I think defending changes in a plan to save the ungulate herds would be pretty defensible. JMNSHO

 

[BHR]

Bullhound,

I hear what your saying and understand your sense of urgancy. What you need to understand is that this whole deal is one big game of chess. Don't sacrifice your queen just to capture their knight.

I think Wyoming's up coming lawsuit has a good chance of getting you where you want to be with wolf management in a much quicker time frame. That is why guy's like Ithaca are whining about it. Be patient, pay attention, and see what happens. It should be interesting!

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Bullhound, bears and cats both kill for fun, it happens all the time. I'd suggest you tag along with a government trapper, watch the discovery channel, or take a wildlife biology course.

You put any bear, wolf, or lion in the right situation and they will kill easy prey. Mostly livestock, but even deer and elk under the right set of circumstances.

I agree with Ithaca that if you want to help deer and elk, kill lions and bears every year. Thats something you can do, instead of bitching about wolves.

I also have to ask why, if wolves are reducing herds so much, is Montana allowing more liberal seasons and bag limits on elk, and also why they set decades old harvest records last season?

Wolves have an impact on ungulate populations, but its nothing compared to lions, and thats a fact. Population figures like those listed by Ithaca, you can easily call 4,000 deer or elk dead per week from just cats...and thats being pretty conservative.

If you're really concerned about your deer and elk herds, turn in all the renegade redneck bumkins from Lewiston who think its their god-given right to kill several elk and deer each per season on their grandmas, kids, wifes, and friends, permits.

You'd have a hard time convincing me that wolves kill as many elk and deer per year as PEOPLE poach per year...

I'd suggest you quit worrying about the mice while the elephants are running you over.

 

[Bullhound]

Watch the Discovery Channel? Come on Buzzy......................................................Buzzy, wake up, the coffee is burning.

With regards to bears and cats killing for fun, as you said, in the right situation anything can happen. The FACT is that its not common or often. By the way, I'm specifically talking about our herds in Idaho, as I don't have FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE about Montana's full set of circumstances.

Buzzy,

The fact that you are throwing stones at my hometown tells me all I really need to know about you.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bull, Buzz is real familiar with Lewiston. I agree with him about the amount of poaching that goes on, although the poachers around Orofino and Kamiah make the Lewiston poachers look like a bunch of model citizens.

How many bears and lions have you and your whining buddies shot lately? You can't be too concerned about elk and deer numbers if you're not doing something about the predators you CAN control. I realize, of course, it's alot easier to whine about wolves than go shoot a bear.

And that's been my point all along. Get the wolves delisted and start hunting them as soon as possible. Quit thinking you can play games with the Fish & Wildlife Service. And go shoot some lions and bears in the meantime.

You said, "The point I was attempting to make was that it may be better to give the feds what they want to get the dam things delisted."

Well, after hearing Buzz and I say that about a thousand times, now you're starting to realize that's the best thing to do! Congratulations! But you could have saved a lot of time if you'd just listened to me and Buzz in the first place.

 

[Bullhound]

IT and Buzzy,

Remember a couple years ago when F&G started having bear bait sites set up and letting the public know where they were so they could hunt them? You know, up the Locksa & Selway. Were either of you involved with setting up those sites, or providing money, or support in the form of covering for the people actually setting things up? Until either of you gets in and helps out (no pay, all volunteer) on this effort on the bear population in the area, shut the fu#!K up about who does something about them and who doesn't! Ive got time and $$$ in, do either of you?

On the issue of making the desparaging comments about Lewiston, why don't you name some of the Hillbilly's doing these things. If you know these things to be facts, give me some names. You can email me them. I've allready exchanged emails with F&G today and wouldn't mind talking to them about your allegations. I'd gladly turn in any poacher. Give me (or F&G) some names.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bull, No, I never got involved in setting up anyone's bear baits except my own. I was REAL active in fighting the anti-bear hunting initiative about ten years ago. Sorry, I don't have time to get involved in every crusade that comes along.

I've reported the poachers I know about. F&G hasn't managed to catch most of them at it yet. I supplied the names and addresses.

 

[Bullhound]

"Sorry, I don't have time to get involved in every crusade that comes along."

But you don't mind bitchin about others that don't have time to get involved in every crusade that comes along. So knock it off with your go kill a bear cause bears shit in the woods crusade

Glad to hear ya turned them poachers in if so.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bull, "So knock it off with your go kill a bear cause bears shit in the woods crusade"

I'm not telling people to kill bears because they shit in the woods. I tell them to kill bears and lions because they bitch about wolves killing elk and deer and so do bears and lions. That way they'll have something constructive to do 'til we can hunt wolves. Of course, that's usually too much work for them and they'd rather bitch about wolves while they're sitting around the coffee shop.

I always love the way they react when they bitch about wolves and I ask them why they don't kill a lion and a bear every year.

 

[ROCKYMTNELKSTALKER]

This may or may not be a dead subject right now, but i figured i'd toss in my 2cents worth anyway.
in the a couple of feb. 03 issues of the Daily Interlake and the Missoulian there were a couple of very good articles regardingwolf management. It is quite possible that the information given about Montana only having 10 pairs of breeding wolves is incorrect seems that montana has reached about 17 breeding pairs and that the fwp has petetioned the state on 2 or 3 occasions to delist the wolves but the state has declined each time stating that there is not enough $ in it's current budget to impliment and effective, stable management plan.
As a result the fwp has given the state until 2006 to come up with a workable management plan or the fwp will seek federal delisting in montana.
A very good friend of mine who works as a state fwp biologist is on the wolf recovery team in montana and he has told people in our community that the articles are correct and that they have tried to get the wolves delisted, but that certain state reps are giving into enviromentalist pressure.
Until we as a people either get these reps out of office or voice our beliefs loud enough to drown out those of the enviromentalists, i fear that these issues will go unresolved until it is to late and we have no choice but to start an all out eradication program like that at the end of the 19th century.
JMHO.

Scott