Thread: NOW: Appeals Court rejects move to stop wolf hunt

UPDATE: SEE BELOW

Northwest wolf lovers may be howling today in Boise

Sometime today, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and its governing Commission will literally get a handful of controversy when Gem State wildlife managers present their proposals for a wolf hunt in that state.

Northwest wolf lovers may be howling today in Boise - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

The livestock killing issue is a pointless argument now. It's been proven that blasting a recording of the territorial howls of a different pack no more than three times a day for about 5 minutes each time is sufficient to set boundaries and keep the other pack at bay. This technique has been used in three countries and has had, I believe, a 100% success rate.

Killing off wild game is another story so I can understand that angle.

WA hunters questioning origins of Teanaway wolves


This week’s announcement of a new wolf pack in the Teanaway region of Washington’s central Cascades has left the state’s hunting community suspicious, about the timing and especially about the origin of these predators and how they were discovered.

WA hunters questioning origins of Teanaway wolves - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

the wolfs have made a huge come back. they are the cause of alot of elk kills where the elk was hardly consumed. there are alot of reports of the wolfs focusing on humans. wolf packs circling people. they are very dangerous hunters with lots of friends. this should be interesting on what Montana and Idaho will do

Originally Posted by Woody

this should be interesting on what Montana and Idaho will do

My guess is: The HSUS will file lawsuit after lawsuit until the seasons are closed again, and their beloved wolf god is once again protected under the ESA.

Originally Posted by coyote223

My guess is: The HSUS will file lawsuit after lawsuit until the seasons are closed again, and their beloved wolf god is once again protected under the ESA.

You're warm

Wolf advocates like gun prohibitionists: Never enough

Western state hunters and game managers are once again learning just how far wolf advocates will go in order to prevent the states from managing wolf populations that have exceeded anyone’s expectations, though perhaps not their wildest dreams.

Wolf advocates like gun prohibitionists: Never enough - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

Woody - you made a lot of claims - where is the actual proof that they are focusing on humans? Wolves typically try to avoid humans. What about the untouched remains being left behind. Cattle and calfs die - prove that the wolf did the killing versus doing the chewing on a carcass. Ranchers are cashing in on this. I feel that alot of this is hype on the wolf haters side of the board which I beleive is more scare tactics. Where is the proof?

Workman - so there are a 1000 wolves in Idaho - big deal - the state cant handle that many based on whose dedicated research - who is paying for the research - the hunters and stockmen? Guess what the hunters and stockmen killed them off in the first place - historically what was the wolf population back in the 18th century? Bet it was more than a thousand for the state of Idaho.

I also bet that the cougar population has a larger impact than the wolf population does presently.

In my opinion hunters and ranchers should not be the only ones having a say in the wolf population. If the ranchers want to control the wolf population do it on their own property not federal land. The ranchers should not have explicit rights on federal or state lands, not at the minimal charge they pay per head to graze on that property. In Oregon its maybe the price of a couple bales of hay to graze for 9 months. The problem with this is that the wolves might have impact on a freebie the ranchers expect now.

This has nothing to do with gun ownership or the second amendment, that is a seperate issue - dont get the two confused.

James Ruby

Originally Posted by JGRuby

This has nothing to do with gun ownership or the second amendment, that is a seperate issue - dont get the two confused.

James Ruby

This IS the hunting sub-forum, and wolf packs have everything to do with ungulate numbers, therefore they have a direct impact on hunting.
Hunters have paid for game and non-game species of wildlife management for nearly a century through gun and ammo sales, license and tag sales, and taxes.
More than any other group.
Fish and Wildlife Service | Southeast Region

Breakthrough: Pittman-Robertson Act

Then a remarkable thing happened. At the urging of organized sportsmen, State wildlife agencies, and the firearms and ammunition industries, Congress extended the life of an existing 10 percent tax on ammunition and firearms used for sport hunting, and earmarked the proceeds to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. The result was called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson (or "P-R") Act after its principal sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. The measure was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937.

Since then, numerous species have rebuilt their populations and extended their ranges far beyond what they were in the 1930's. Among them are the wild turkey, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, wood duck, beaver, black bear, giant Canada goose, American elk, desert bighorn sheep, bobcat, mountain lion, and several species of predatory birds.

Any more "pearls of wisdom" there JG?

Oddly enough there already is a wolf season in Eastern Oregon. Locals refer to it as the "3S" hunt.

Originally Posted by JGRuby

Woody - you made a lot of claims - where is the actual proof that they are focusing on humans? Wolves typically try to avoid humans. What about the untouched remains being left behind. Cattle and calfs die - prove that the wolf did the killing versus doing the chewing on a carcass. Ranchers are cashing in on this. I feel that alot of this is hype on the wolf haters side of the board which I beleive is more scare tactics. Where is the proof?

Workman - so there are a 1000 wolves in Idaho - big deal - the state cant handle that many based on whose dedicated research - who is paying for the research - the hunters and stockmen? Guess what the hunters and stockmen killed them off in the first place - historically what was the wolf population back in the 18th century? Bet it was more than a thousand for the state of Idaho.

I also bet that the cougar population has a larger impact than the wolf population does presently.

In my opinion hunters and ranchers should not be the only ones having a say in the wolf population. If the ranchers want to control the wolf population do it on their own property not federal land. The ranchers should not have explicit rights on federal or state lands, not at the minimal charge they pay per head to graze on that property. In Oregon its maybe the price of a couple bales of hay to graze for 9 months. The problem with this is that the wolves might have impact on a freebie the ranchers expect now.

This has nothing to do with gun ownership or the second amendment, that is a seperate issue - dont get the two confused.

James Ruby

The one problem with your contention about ranchers having no "Special rights" on State or Federal lands ignores the fact that the government gets a nice hunk of change from ranchers by leasing grazing rights in the forest in the summer so ranchers can use their pastures to grow hay to feed the herd in winter. Should these herds just be left to the mercy of the wolves, and should the ranchers be asked to feed the wolves for the conservationists pleasure?

Jamie6.5 - you do have a point about the this being the hunting forum. I admit to that point and I am wrong and concede that point.

On the wolf issue - I have been buying hunting tags for 37 years so far - I buy tags for each season with the possibility that I might actually get to go. I as a sportsman / hunter feel that the wolf is a native creature and has a right to be there as does the deer and the elk. In my opinion the reason why the wolf is being despised is that they are competing with the ranchers and the hunters plans. Guess what the hunters and ranchers killed them off in the first place. I feel that the animals will control thier own population due to lack of food, weather and / or disease as do most other animals. I support wildlife but I support all native wildlife not just some.

James Ruby

I did know that sportsmen supportted the wildlife and thier habitat - I have known this for a long time. But many hunters feel that wolves should not exist in the field.

Originally Posted by JGRuby

I did know that sportsmen supportted the wildlife and thier habitat - I have known this for a long time. But many hunters feel that wolves should not exist in the field.

I am sure there are a few. But no one I know believes they should be eradicated. There are a few salient points that need to be made (AGAIN) about this debate.
1)The wolves that were imported are not anything close to the indigenous species. They are 30-50% larger and much more efficient predators.
2)They are NOT an endangered species. In their home range of Canada they are a nuisance/pest that has overpopulated their habitat. In many areas, Canada has a shoot-on-sight policy for dealing with them.
3)As such, the endangered species laws/rulings are specious at best, and controls on their numbers need to be instituted/applied. Why? Because they are prolific breeders whose numbers can decimate entire herds of prey if left unchecked.

It's not eradication the hunter/sportsman is after. It's the ability to follow the advice of wildlife biologist that are responsible for all the prey species. That advice is to control their numbers.
The advocates like HSUS, defenders of wildlife, the Audubon society etc., have taken an anti hunting stance and are using the Canadian gray wolf as a strawman in their war against hunting in general.
A prime example is the argument you posted above. Proof that you have bought into their argument.

They know that unchecked numbers of wolves will decimate ungulate populations, and diminish hunter opportunities as well as success rates. They see this as a good thing. Especially if, as a result, people quit hunting.
Do you?

How many is too many? Hunters and ungulate biologists know, and want wolf numbers controlled.
HSUS and the rest of their ilk don't care. They have a different agenda altogether, and it has nothing to do with what's best for wildlife in general.

Originally Posted by JGRuby

Jamie6.5 - you do have a point about the this being the hunting forum. I admit to that point and I am wrong and concede that point.

On the wolf issue - I have been buying hunting tags for 37 years so far - I buy tags for each season with the possibility that I might actually get to go. I as a sportsman / hunter feel that the wolf is a native creature and has a right to be there as does the deer and the elk. In my opinion the reason why the wolf is being despised is that they are competing with the ranchers and the hunters plans. Guess what the hunters and ranchers killed them off in the first place. I feel that the animals will control thier own population due to lack of food, weather and / or disease as do most other animals. I support wildlife but I support all native wildlife not just some.

James Ruby

I did know that sportsmen supportted the wildlife and thier habitat - I have known this for a long time. But many hunters feel that wolves should not exist in the field.

And the states should be allowed to manage that same wolf as they see fit, the exact same way they manage the deer and the elk populations. Without all these special interest groups interfering with their lawsuits, and special protections afforded by the ESA.

The ranchers pay only a few dollars a head to graze for the summer months - nothing close to what it would cost to raise that same amount of cattle on their own land or what a private land owner would charge for the same service - in short the ranchers are taking advantage of the property that tax payers are maintianing - in no way are the ranchers paying an equitable amount for the land they are using for grazing priveldges. This is the equivalent of the old soil bank funding. Put an equitable charge on the gazing that is equivalent of what a private land owner would charge and it would be fair, otherwise they are raising more cattle than they should be based on thier private resources.


here are some stats
Costs to the U.S. Government (and the American taxpayer) to manage these programs was as follows in FY 2004 (as determined by the General Accounting Office[GAO]):

•BLM – $58.3 Million
•FS – $74.2 Million
Giving us a total of $132.5 million in management costs in FY 2004 (there is some discrepancy between the estimated management costs of the GAO and some private organizations – i.e. the Center for Biological Diversity estimates the cost to be $500 million annually)

Fees received for grazing permits in FY 2004:

•BLM – $11.8 Million
•FS - $ 5.7 Million
Giving a total of $17.5 Million received, a deficit of $115 Million in administrative costs alone to manage the permits for the ‘operators’.

The Bone Trail » Bureau of Land Management

James Ruby

I would argue that the wild life biologists dont have a clue or else they would not have brought a specises into an area that is not native to that area. One of two things appear either the biologists are idiots for bringing in a new species or the wolves are gentically the same. Which is it? If the biologists are idiots why should we put any faith in what they say as they caused the problem. If the wolves are the same gentiically then they belong there. So are these wolves gentically speaking the same or are they just larger wolves - do they belong to the same sub species of wolf?

James Ruby

Originally Posted by JGRuby

The ranchers pay only a few dollars a head to graze for the summer months - nothing close to what it would cost to raise that same amount of cattle on their own land or what a private land owner would charge for the same service - in short the ranchers are taking advantage of the property that tax payers are maintianing - in no way are the ranchers paying an equitable amount for the land they are using for grazing priveldges. This is the equivalent of the old soil bank funding. Put an equitable charge on the gazing that is equivalent of what a private land owner would charge and it would be fair, otherwise they are raising more cattle than they should be based on thier private resources.

I always figured it was a convenient aid to ranchers. It's not like the govt. doesn't hand out agricultural subsidies or maintain other agricultural programs that cost money. I agree more with grazing on public lands than most forms of assistance.

The problem with ranchers grazing on public property is that the herd eats the same staples as an elk herd does - the less elk the the more grazing for the cattle. That does not even reflect that new fences are being put up all the time by the ranchers - these fences impact herd movement- we hunt Desolation and Northside - the fences that exist can be maintianed but no new fences are to be built - yet the ranchers dont follow this rule over there. Secondly when was the last time you saw the ODFW disperse a herd of elk on private propety - they do that all the time on public property - so the racnhers win again. If given the choice i would outlaw grazing on non privately owned lands.


James Ruby

Originally Posted by JGRuby

- in short the ranchers are taking advantage of the property that tax payers are maintianing - in no way are the ranchers paying an equitable amount for the land they are using for grazing priveldges.


James Ruby

Other Peoples Money, our government is good at wasting our tax dollars. Look at all the recources we have in this country, that are locked away because of environmental groups, and an administration that refuses to allow cutting of timber, drilling for oil, etc. Atleast someone is still getting a some benefit from the use of our federal lands,,,

Ninth Circuit rejects motion to halt MT, ID wolf hunts

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco yesterday turned thumbs down on a motion from environmental groups to stop planned wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho, and in the aftermath, Washington hunters are cheering, and they are getting a quick education about what lies over their political horizon.

Ninth Circuit rejects motion to halt MT, ID wolf hunts - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

Oh yeah, happy to hear that,,,